list_import_rows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states that it lists rows and can filter by state; it does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, how pagination works (cursor), any rate limits, or what the response structure looks like beyond the output schema. This is a significant gap for a data-listing tool, and with zero annotations it fails to provide necessary behavioral context. A 1 is warranted.

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 a single, focused sentence that states the core purpose and the main optional filter. It is efficient with no fluff and is appropriately front-loaded. However, it could be more structured by briefly mentioning key parameters, but as a concise statement it earns a 4.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, an output schema, and is part of a larger import inspection workflow, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the return format (even though an output schema exists, the description should guide on interpretation), does not mention pagination via cursor, does not clarify the meaning of import_id, and lacks any guidance on typical usage flow (e.g., first get an import, then list its rows). This is far from complete for an agent to call correctly without additional context. A 1 is justified.

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 by explaining each parameter. The description adds value for the 'state' parameter by naming valid values (valid/invalid/candidate), but it does not explain 'import_id', 'limit', or 'cursor'. These parameters remain undocumented in both the schema (which has no descriptions) and the description. Since it covers only one of four parameters and the rest are unaddressed, a 2 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 clearly identifies the verb 'List' and the resource 'import rows', and mentions an optional state filter with specific values (valid/invalid/candidate). This is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like list_imports or list_features, though it does not explicitly name an alternative. A 4 is appropriate because it is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 provides minimal usage context by mentioning the optional state filter, but it gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when you need rows of a specific import vs. all imports). It does not mention prerequisites like needing an import_id, or that this is for inspecting a specific import's contents. This leaves the agent without clear selection criteria, so a 2 is fair.

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