list_saved_queries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a list operation (implying read-only) and mentions a JSON response, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether it requires specific permissions, how pagination works beyond parameters, error conditions, or if it's safe for frequent use. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic operation.

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 clear sections (Args, Returns) and front-loaded the main purpose. It's appropriately sized with no redundant sentences, though the 'Returns' line could be more informative given no output schema.

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 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters and return type, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, errors) and detailed output explanation, which is needed for a tool with no structured support. It's adequate but has clear gaps.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining all three parameters (skip, limit, name) in the 'Args' section, adding meaning like 'for pagination' and 'Filter by query name'. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., case-sensitivity for name) or default values, which are in the schema but not described. Baseline is 3 as it adds value over the bare schema.

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') and resource ('saved Cypher queries'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'search_objects' or 'run_cypher_query' that might also involve queries, though 'list_saved_queries' appears unique among the provided 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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), context (e.g., after creating queries), or comparisons with sibling tools like 'search_graph' or 'interpret_cypher_result' that might overlap in query-related functionality.

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