List recent LipDub renders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context: it is account-scoped, returns 'a short summary of each', and is 'Free and never rate-limited'. This goes beyond the annotations by disclosing cost and rate-limit behavior, which is genuinely useful for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 well-structured with a clear main statement, bullet-pointed 'when to use' triggers, and a note about returns and cost. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary, but every section serves a purpose and no sentence is wasted. The main action is front-loaded.

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 listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it returns (short summary), how to proceed to get a download link (via lipdub_get_render), and cost/free status. It does not describe the exact shape of the summary, but that is not critical for invoking the tool. Overall it is sufficient for correct usage.

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?

The single parameter 'limit' is fully documented in the input schema (type, default, min, max, description). The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema — it does not mention pagination limits or default behavior. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to repeat schema details.

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 a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('LipDub renders'), and a scope ('on this account'), plus an explicit ordering ('newest first'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like lipdub_get_render (retrieve one) or lipdub_create_render (make new), so an agent can immediately identify the tool's role.

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 provides explicit 'Use this when' conditions: losing a render_id (e.g., after conversation trimming) or when the user asks for recent renders. It also advises the follow-up call to lipdub_get_render, giving clear decision guidance about when this tool is appropriate and what to do next.

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