ldbd_list_my_open_predictions

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the scope is clearly stated (open, not resolved predictions). However, it does not disclose potential issues like ordering, pagination, authentication requirements, or behavior when no predictions exist. The information is adequate but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. The parenthetical 'not yet resolved' adds valuable clarification without unnecessary words. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description is adequate but not fully complete. It tells what is listed but does not specify the structure of the returned predictions (e.g., array fields, count, or ordering). Since no output schema exists, the description should ideally provide more detail about return value format, leaving a notable gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema correctly reflects an empty object with 100% coverage. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies to zero-parameter tools, and the description adds no extra parameter detail because none is needed. No deduction is warranted.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('my open predictions') and adds the parenthetical clarification 'not yet resolved' to disambiguate scope. It clearly states what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like ldbd_review_my_track_record, which might also involve predictions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios where this should be preferred over ldbd_review_my_track_record or ldbd_get_my_stats, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description only states the function without context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.