corymbus_list

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already discloses the safe read-only nature. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what the annotation provides, such as noting that nameContains works only if supported by the entity, which is also in the schema. No extra details about response format or rate limits are given.

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, focused sentence that introduces the tool and lists key parameters efficiently. No wasted words, and the most important information (secondary entities) is front-loaded.

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?

With 7 parameters, an entity enum, and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps. It does not explain differences across entity types, return structures, or any entity-specific limitations beyond the schema's note on nameContains. It is sufficient for a straightforward list tool but not rich enough for high completeness.

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 schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the description adds little beyond restating a few parameter names. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description provides no additional semantic value.

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 as a generic list for secondary entities, enumerating the specific entity types (campaign, target, user, subscription, filter, team, document, product, quote). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list accounts, contacts, opportunities, and activities.

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 provides implied usage context by labeling the tool as for secondary entities, which hints that primary entities have dedicated list tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling list tools or provide any 'when not to use' guidance.

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