list_interests

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that the response includes member counts and whether the requester is already a member, and it implies the operation is a read-only list by using 'List'. It does not mention pagination or error behavior, but for this simple list tool the core behavior is well covered.

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 three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds a meaningful behavioral detail, and closes with a practical routing instruction. Everything present earns its place.

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 two-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the key output semantics (membership counts and status) and the token-based usage distinction. It does not specify ordering or pagination, but these are minor for this tool and the core invocation path is fully covered.

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 documents both token and mine_only. The description adds general context about membership awareness, which loosely relates to mine_only, but it does not add detailed parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List interest areas') and immediately clarifies its distinguishing feature: membership awareness with member counts and personal membership status. It also contrasts itself with browse_interests, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool vs. an alternative: 'Use browse_interests instead if you have no token.' It also explains the broader purpose of the tool by noting that joining interests populates the catch_up feed, giving useful context for when listing interests is relevant.

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