list_moves

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

States read-only and details entry components (origin, destination, reversibility). No annotations provided, so description carries transparency burden well.

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?

Short, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Two sentences covering purpose and behavior.

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?

Lacks parameter descriptions and output format details. Adequate for simple list operation but incomplete compared to potential sibling differentiation.

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 0%; description does not explain parameters 'limit' or 'include_restored'. Names and defaults are suggestive but not explicit.

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?

Clearly states it lists message moves, newest first. Distinct from siblings like propose_move and apply_move which handle action proposals and execution.

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?

Describes as read-only and lists history, implying use for review. Lacks explicit guidance on when to avoid or alternatives, but context from sibling tools partially fills gap.

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