Automation Read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return shape ('[bar, value] points') and the special track identifiers ('master', 'bus:<name>'), but says nothing about auth/permissions, pagination, ordering, or behavior on an empty lane. Some value added beyond structured fields, but significant behavioral gaps remain.

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 tight sentence with the operation front-loaded and the special-case detail parenthetically attached. No wasted words.

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 not be explained in depth (the description's brief format note is a bonus). However, for a tool with zero annotation and zero schema-description coverage, it leaves the 'project' parameter and read-operation safety profile undocumented, which is a noticeable gap.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the accepted values for 'track' (including 'master' and 'bus:<name>'), which is genuinely useful, but never mentions the required 'project' parameter nor the format of ordinary track names. Partial compensation only.

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 gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('automation lanes on a track'), and adds scope detail by noting that 'master' and 'bus:<name>' are also valid targets. It is clearly a read operation, distinguishable from automation_set/automation_clear by name and verb, though it never explicitly names those siblings as alternatives.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus automation_set or automation_clear, nor any prerequisites (e.g., a project must be open). The read-only intent is only inferable from the verb 'List', so usage is implied rather than stated.

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