thincms_list_sequences

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List email sequences with their steps,' which implies a read operation but does not confirm idempotency, side effects, authorization needs, or any limitations (e.g., pagination, rate limits). Critical safety details are absent.

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, well-structured sentence of 8 words, conveying the core purpose without redundancy. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning top marks for conciseness.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description provides only minimal context for a list tool. It does not mention return format, sorting, filtering, or pagination. While adequate for a simple tool, it leaves gaps that could confuse an agent, especially among many sibling list tools.

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?

The input schema already has 100% description coverage, providing detailed explanations for both parameters (siteId and confirmProductionWrite). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, but since schema coverage is high, a baseline score of 3 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 states the tool lists email sequences (drip campaigns) and includes their steps. It effectively conveys the action and resource, distinguishing it from related tools like thincms_get_sequence. However, it does not explicitly specify scope (e.g., whether it lists all sequences or supports filtering), which prevents a higher score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as thincms_get_sequence or thincms_list_campaigns. The description offers no context about appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, making it hard for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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