yougile_list_string_stickers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which covers the safety profile. The description adds a useful behavioral detail that 'States are embedded in each sticker object,' which is not obvious from the schema. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like pagination behavior (though implied by limit/offset params) or any rate limits, so it adds only modest value beyond annotations.

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 extremely concise—just two sentences. The first sentence states the core function, and the second adds a clarifying detail about the output. There is no unnecessary verbiage, and the information 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 list operation with full schema coverage, strong read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool returns (states embedded), and the schema handles parameters. It could mention that parameters are all optional filters/pagination, but the schema already conveys that. Minor gap: no explicit statement that it returns a list of stickers, but that is implied by the verb 'List.'

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 schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (limit, offset, projectId). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so it hits the baseline of 3 as per the rubric.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('string stickers'), and clarifies that these are custom labels/tags for tasks. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_string_sticker (single retrieval) and create/update variants. The addition of 'States are embedded in each sticker object' further defines the resource.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or when to prefer this over list_sprint_stickers or other list tools. The context of sibling names implies usage but the description itself offers no explicit direction.

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