List requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds that results include hasTests and saved-example flags, but says nothing about result volume, ordering, or pagination for a workspace-wide list.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and the returned fields before the usage tip. The field enumeration is slightly long given an output schema exists, but it is compact and informative.

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?

A read-only listing tool with an output schema; the description correctly avoids re-explaining return values and covers purpose plus entry-point guidance. The only gap is noting that results may be large and how to narrow them via the folder filter.

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 coverage is 100% and the single folder parameter is fully documented in the schema (names and nested paths, plus the omit-to-list-everything default). The description never mentions the folder filter, but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specific verb ('List') plus resource ('API requests saved in this Gostman workspace'), with an enumeration of returned fields (id, method, URL template, hasTests, examples) that lets an agent predict the response shape.

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?

'Call this first to find a request to send instead of writing a curl command' gives a clear entry-point rule and steers away from an ad-hoc alternative. It does not name sibling tools like get_request or send_request, so the routing is implied rather than exhaustive.

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