list refusals

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses append-only semantics ('a refusal later overridden is still listed'), ordering tie-break ('created_at desc, id desc'), Cache-Control: no-store, and pagination behavior. It also documents truncation ('reason ... truncated to 500 chars') and the null last-page cursor, giving the agent a full behavioral picture.

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 information-dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose first, then endpoint/scope, return shape, ordering, append-only caveat, cache behavior, and cost. No filler or repetition is present; it is long because the tool has meaningful behavioral specifics to disclose.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully substitutes by specifying the exact response shape, cursor semantics, ordering, truncation, and pagination. It also covers auth scope, cache behavior, cost, filter semantics implied by examples, and append-only visibility — nothing necessary for a correct call is missing.

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 every parameter is already documented in the input schema. The tool description adds some operational context such as the pagination flow and the meaning of next_cursor, but it mostly restates schema-level semantics, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Pages through the workspace's refusal ledger') and enumerates exactly what counts as a refusal with concrete examples, making it unmistakably distinct from sibling list tools like list_alerts or list_audit_tombstones. Saying 'newest first, for audit and compliance reporting' further pins the tool's purpose.

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 gives clear context for when this is appropriate ('for audit and compliance reporting') and notes the required API-key scope and cost ('Free'). It does not explicitly contrast it with alternative list/audit tools such as list_audit_tombstones or export_audit_log, so exclusion guidance is missing, but the intended use is clear enough.

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