study_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a listing operation with an optional filter, giving no information about pagination, ordering, return format, or side effects. The tool may be read-only, but that is not disclosed, and there is no mention of constraints or environmental dependencies beyond the cryptic 'study-level state'.

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 one short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the main action. It avoids verbosity and unnecessary detail, but the brevity sacrifices essential clarification. The structure is appropriate for a simple tool, though it could have been expanded with a few more useful details without harming conciseness.

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 complexity (only one optional parameter) and that an output schema exists, the description could be minimal, but it still omits critical context about the 'state' values and the distinction from related sibling tools. The description is too vague to allow an agent to call the tool confidently, as it lacks details on filter behavior and expected output content.

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 mentions 'state' as a filter but does not explain its valid values, format, or semantics. The parameter schema is minimal (anyOf string/null), so an agent receives no help in constructing the filter. The description adds only the vague phrase 'study-level state', which is insufficient to compensate for the lack of schema 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 the verb 'List' and resource 'studies', and mentions an optional filter by 'study-level state', which gives a basic sense of purpose. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'study_status' or 'study_results' that also relate to studies, and the phrase 'study-level state' is vague, lacking definitions of what states exist or how they are expressed.

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 use for listing studies, possibly with a state filter, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no stated scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, and no mention of how 'state' filters affect results. An agent must infer its usage purely from the terse description.

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