list_bruno_requests

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a read-only listing operation but does not mention behaviors like recursive search, file ordering, or output format. This leaves the agent uncertain about what exactly will be returned.

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 remarkably concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and adds the optional parameter in a natural way, with no wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional param, no output schema), but the description fails to specify what information is returned (e.g., filenames, full paths, metadata) or whether the listing is recursive. Given the lack of an output schema, this is a meaningful gap for an agent.

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 input schema already provides a full description for the only parameter (project_path) with 100% coverage. The tool description adds the context 'collection root' but does not go beyond the schema in explaining the parameter's meaning or behavior.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'List all Bruno request files in the collection root.' It is distinct from sibling tools 'get_bruno_request_detail' and 'run_bruno_request', which focus on viewing details and executing requests respectively.

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?

The description gives clear context that this tool lists files at the collection root and mentions the optional project_path parameter. However, it does not explicitly explain when to use this tool over the siblings, such as saying 'use this to browse available requests before running them.'

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