list_senders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'advertised in the registry' but does not mention read-only nature, pagination, rate limits, or ordering. The minimal description leaves significant gaps for a list tool.

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 sentence with no extraneous words. However, it could benefit from being more front-loaded with parameter info.

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 optional label parameter and sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how filtering works, what the output contains (despite having an output schema), or how it differs from other list tools. Incomplete for a 1-parameter tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description completely fails to address the optional 'label' parameter. It adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, leaving the agent without guidance on filtering.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'Senders', and adds clarifying context '(media egress points)' that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_sender (single) or disable_sender (action).

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 the tool is for listing many senders, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it vs alternatives like get_sender or query_resources, nor any exclusions or conditions.

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