list_sketches

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal that the returned sketch_ref values are stable and that the call is a read-style listing. It does not disclose pagination behavior, whether a document must be open, or the full result shape, leaving some important behavior unstated.

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 states the action, the key output (stable sketch_refs), and the downstream purpose with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and every word earns its place.

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?

Although the core purpose is clear, there is no output schema and no parameter semantics, while the sibling set contains many sketch-related tools. The definition does not fully equip an agent to handle filtered calls, to understand limits, or to know what data will be returned beyond sketch_ref.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning for any of the four parameters: max_items, document_id, name_contains, or include_entity_counts. The parameter names and defaults are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema-level documentation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List sketches' with a distinctive output: stable sketch_ref values for follow-up entity tools. This clearly differentiates it from sibling list_sketch_entities, which is the entity-level counterpart. An agent can tell this tool returns sketch-level references rather than entity details.

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 phrase 'for follow-up entity tools' implies the primary use case: obtain sketch references before calling list_sketch_entities or inspect_sketch_entity. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use this tool. Usage guidance is implicit rather than directive.

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