list_interpretations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It implies a read operation but does not confirm read-only nature, authentication requirements, or other constraints. More detail is needed.

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 concise sentence that gets to the point, but its brevity limits the information conveyed. It is appropriately front-loaded but could benefit from slightly more detail.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks essential details such as pagination behavior, ordering, and the meaning of all parameters. It is not complete enough for effective use.

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 0%, yet the description only explains the source_id parameter. It does not explain user_id (despite mentioning 'authenticated user'), limit, or offset. This is insufficient for a 4-parameter tool.

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', the resource 'interpretation runs', and the scope 'for the authenticated user' with optional filtering by source_id. This distinguishes it from create_interpretation and other list tools.

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 hints at usage via filtering but does not explicitly state when to use it versus other tools or when not to use it. No comparisons to siblings are given.

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