list_callbacks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states this is a list operation (read-only) and adds ordering ('newest first') and scope ('this server has received') beyond the tool name. It does not mention pagination or response details, but for a simple list operation this is reasonably transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core purpose and ordering in six words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 low complexity (two optional params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is generally complete. It explains what the tool lists and the ordering, though it could optionally mention that results can be filtered by kind or limited, but these are partially covered by the schema.

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 only 50%, so the description needs to compensate for the undocumented limit parameter. However, the description does not mention either the 'kind' filter or the 'limit' parameter. The only parameter meaning comes from the schema's partial description, so the description adds no value here.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List callbacks' clearly indicates the action and object. It further distinguishes the tool by scoping to 'this server' and specifying ordering as 'newest first', which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_callback and pull_transactions.

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 implies use when you want to view callbacks received by the server, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like get_callback (which fetches a single callback) or pull_transactions (which retrieves transactions). No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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