List Requests

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context beyond these annotations: it emphasizes 'recent' (implying temporal ordering) and includes pagination via a cursor, which are useful behavioral traits. It does not detail rate limits or response format, but that is partially mitigated by the annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a clear args list. It contains no redundant or verbose phrases, and every sentence serves a purpose.

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 simple list tool with optional parameters and strong annotations, the description is fully adequate. It explains the returned content (status and results), pagination via cursor, and the default/range for limit. No output schema exists, but the description covers the essential details needed to invoke the tool successfully.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description's parameter section merely repeats the schema's descriptions (limit and cursor) without adding extra meaning, such as how the cursor is obtained or what happens if the limit is exceeded.

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 lists recent XBrush API requests with status and results. The verb 'list' and resource 'requests' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling xbrush_get_request by focusing on a collection of recent requests.

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 usage for listing recent requests but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of alternatives like xbrush_get_request or how to handle pagination pitfalls. There is no explicit exclusion or comparison with sibling tools, so guidance is only implied.

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