operate_list_gigs

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies read-only via the verb 'Browse'. It says nothing about pagination, result limits, authentication requirements, or whether the call has side effects, all of which an agent needs before invoking a marketplace listing tool.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is efficient. The terseness is borderline under-specification rather than verbosity, but nothing in the sentence 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what a caller gets back, but 'gigs and operators' is never clarified — it is unclear whether operators are returned as a separate collection, embedded in gigs, or not returned at all. For a browse tool this leaves the agent guessing about the response shape.

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 coverage is 100% — the single optional 'category' parameter is already documented as an optional category filter — so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about accepted category values, matching behavior, or how filtering interacts with the 'operators' portion of the results.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Browse') with a resource ('published gigs') and a named surface ('Operate.Center marketplace'), so an agent knows this is a read-oriented listing tool rather than a mutation. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling 'operate_check_queue', which plausibly also surfaces pending work, and the trailing 'and operators' makes the returned resource slightly ambiguous.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as operate_check_queue, nor any prerequisites, filters guidance, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer that this is the marketplace-browsing entry point purely from the word 'Browse'.

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