list_interpretations

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

No annotations provided. Description states it lists runs for the authenticated user with optional source_id filter, but lacks details on authentication requirements, side effects, rate limits, or handling of empty results. The description is too brief to compensate for missing 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?

A single concise sentence, but it lacks detail. It is not wasteful, but the brevity sacrifices informativeness.

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?

Without output schema or annotation support, the description is critically incomplete. It omits pagination details (limit/offset), the meaning of user_id, and what an interpretation run entails, leaving the agent with insufficient context.

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 has 4 parameters (user_id, source_id, limit, offset) with 0% coverage in schema descriptions. The description only mentions source_id as an optional filter, adding no meaning for user_id, limit, or offset.

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 action (list) and resource (interpretation runs) with authentication scope and optional filtering. However, it does not distinguish from any close sibling tools, as there is no other list-interpretations tool among siblings.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives. It mentions optional filtering but does not specify when not to use or prerequisites. No contrast with create_interpretation or other list tools.

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