list_claims

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden but discloses little beyond 'paginated'. It does not state what pagination returns, the default filtering to cited-only sentences, auth/permission needs, or cost. The listing behavior is only implicitly conveyed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource leading and no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though it could sacrifice a word or two to add usage context.

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?

For a 6-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal but conveys the shape of results. It omits usage guidance, pagination mechanics, and the cited-vs-uncited default, leaving clear gaps for an agent acting without structured support.

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 67%, so the schema already documents file, status, section and include_uncited, while limit/offset are undescribed there. The description adds only 'paginated', which loosely maps to limit/offset but gives no defaults or bounds. Baseline 3 is appropriate given partial schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb (List), a clearly defined resource ('cited sentences (\'claims\')'), and the returned fields (keys, location, verification status). It is far clearer than a tautology, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like get_claim or scan_uncited.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The only operational hint is the '(paginated)' clause. An agent gets no help deciding this tool over get_claim or scan_uncited.

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