list_saved_requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are returned by name along with method/URL/headers/variables, which is useful framing, but it discloses no behavioral traits beyond that (no pagination, no ordering, no depth behavior for nested groups) — though the output schema carries much of that burden.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first declares what is returned, the second front-loads the actionable trigger. No filler, nothing repeated from structured fields.

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 read-only single-optional-param list tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, and the shape of results. It omits only the group-filtering capability, which the schema already handles, so an agent has essentially everything it needs.

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 single 'group' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its hierarchical matching semantics. The description adds nothing about the group filter or its default, making this the baseline 3 where the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the requests the user saved in Plunger') and even enumerates the returned fields (name, method, URL, headers, variables). It is distinguishable from get_saved_request and list_variables/list_workflows by the resource it targets, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use guidance: 'Call this before building a request from scratch: the user may already have the exact call set up.' That is a clear situational trigger, but there is no when-not guidance or explicit alternative named among the many lookup siblings.

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