List User Pastes

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the auth requirement, but says nothing about pagination behavior, ordering of results, or rate limits — relevant details for a listing endpoint that returns up to 1000 items.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably too terse to be maximally helpful, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the auth prerequisite is stated. What remains missing is any hint about result ordering or pagination strategy for a tool whose limit parameter stretches to 1000 — enough of a gap to keep this at minimum-viable.

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 api_dev_key, api_user_key, and limit are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb+resource ('List your pastes'), which clearly separates it from create_paste, delete_paste, and get_trending_pastes. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation language, but the scope ('your pastes') is 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 parenthetical '(requires login)' conveys a clear prerequisite for use, which is genuine usage guidance for an authenticated-only endpoint. However, it offers no when-not condition and does not name any alternative tool for cases where the user is unauthenticated or wants public pastes.

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