list_envelopes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool returns 'envelope summaries including titles, statuses, and recipient information,' which adds some behavioral context. However, it lacks details on pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a read-only operation (though implied by 'list'), leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded and concise, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and return value. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and return format, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like pagination or error handling. Without annotations or an output schema, more context would be helpful for safe invocation.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'optional filtering by status,' which aligns with the 'status' parameter. It doesn't provide additional semantics for 'limit' or other details, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: 'List your envelopes with optional filtering by status.' It specifies the verb ('list') and resource ('envelopes'), and mentions filtering capability. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_templates' or 'list_webhooks', which prevents a perfect score.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'optional filtering by status,' suggesting it's for retrieving envelopes with possible status-based selection. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'check_status' for a single envelope or 'list_templates' for templates), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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