list_interviews

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions 'cursor-paginated,' which is a significant behavioral detail about iterating through results. However, it does not specify authentication requirements, response format, or any side effects (though listing is generally read-only). The pagination note adds some value but leaves other behavioral aspects unmentioned.

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 extremely concise (five words), which is positive for readability, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It front-loads the core function but does not structure any additional helpful context. While conciseness is appropriate for a simple list tool, the brevity here is at the expense of usability, so it earns a mid-range score.

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 four parameters (two undocumented in schema), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the meaning of q or status, does not describe the return structure (though pagination is hinted), and fails to provide any usage context that would help an agent call it correctly. The description is too thin to be considered complete for a tool with these characteristics.

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 has descriptions for cursor and page_size (50% coverage), but the tool description itself adds no explanation of the parameters q and status. The description does not clarify what 'q' filters on (e.g., candidate name, interview title) or what 'status' values are acceptable, leaving 50% of parameters under-documented. The description provides no additional semantic value beyond the schema's minimal details.

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 a specific action ('List') on a concrete resource ('live interview rooms') and further distinguishes itself by noting cursor-based pagination. It differentiates from sibling tools like list_assessments or list_invites by its explicit subject matter (interviews) and the 'live' qualifier, leaving no ambiguity about what is returned.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., get_interview, list_assessments, or other list endpoints). It omits any context about prerequisites, use cases, or what distinguishes 'live' interviews from other states, leaving the agent to infer when to select this tool.

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