list_result_sets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that result sets are in-memory, active only, have a 1-hour TTL, and include pagination metadata. It does not explicitly state whether the operation is side-effect-free or whether listing refreshes the TTL, but the display-oriented wording makes mutation unlikely.

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 and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, adds lifecycle context, provides clear usage guidance, and closes with concise examples. Every section earns its place without unnecessary verbosity.

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 tool with two optional parameters, an output schema, and a simple listing purpose, the description covers the full call contract: what is listed, the TTL, the pagination behavior, and how to page through results. No critical information is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema already fully documents both parameters with defaults, types, maximum value, and non-negativity constraints, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description's examples illustrate pagination usage (limit, offset, combining them), but they do not add substantial new meaning beyond the 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 states a specific verb ('Wyświetl' – display) and a specific resource ('aktywne zestawy wyników przechowywane w pamięci'), and further explains that result sets carry a unique result_set_id and pagination metadata. It also names the sibling tools that create these sets, making it clear this is a listing tool, distinct from search and filtering tools.

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 explicitly provides a 'Kiedy użyć' section for checking available result_set_id values and a 'Kiedy NIE używać' section that directs users to search_legal_acts for searching new acts. This is explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with an alternative tool named.

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