list_callbacks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns a summary with specific fields and that results are newest-first. No side effects are mentioned, but the tool appears read-only. The description could mention pagination or lack of mutations, but it's fairly transparent for a list operation.

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?

Three sentences, each adding value: purpose+ordering, return format+alternative tool, and a usage tip. No unnecessary words, well-structured and efficient.

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 no output schema, the description explains return format (method, status, provider, received_at). It references relevant sibling tools. It does not cover error cases or edge conditions, but for a straightforward list tool, it is adequate.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. It mentions ordering and return summary, but these are not tied to parameters. No extra context for slug or limit beyond what schema provides.

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 states the action ('List callbacks'), the resource ('received by an endpoint'), and ordering ('newest first'). It differentiates from siblings by referencing get_callback_payload for full body and wait_for_callback for sequential waiting.

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 tells when to use this tool (list summaries) and when to use alternatives (get_callback_payload for full body). It also provides a practical tip linking to wait_for_callback, showing clear usage context.

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