herdr_handoff_receipt_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'list' but does not explicitly confirm non-destructive behavior, nor does it explain what 'collection state' entails or whether any side effects occur. The description is too terse to be transparent.

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 a single short sentence, which is technically concise, but it is under-specified. The instruction warns that under-specification is not the same as conciseness; here, the brevity sacrifices crucial information, earning a low score.

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 the tool's place among many similar handoff and collection tools, the description offers no context about its role, return format, or expected use cases. There is no output schema, and the description fails to clarify key terms like 'content-free' and 'collection state', making it incomplete for correct agent 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 only parameter, controller_id, is optional and undocumented in both the schema and the description. With 0% schema description coverage, the description is expected to compensate, but it does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent without any semantic context for this value.

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 clear verb ('List') and a specific resource ('handoff receipts'), and adds the qualifiers 'content-free' and 'collection state', which help distinguish it from other handoff-related tools. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or explain what 'content-free' means, so it is not a 5.

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 its many siblings such as herdr_handoff, herdr_collect_handoffs, or herdr_handoff_receipt_abandon. The description does not state any conditions, prerequisites, or alternative routing, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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