list_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose that this is a cache/session-scoped read operation. It does not cover what the returned items contain, whether the read affects the cache, or any freshness/ordering behavior, but for a simple list operation the disclosed caching semantics are meaningful.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the action, resource, and scope without repetition or filler.

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?

For a one-parameter cached-list tool, the description covers the key facts: what is listed, whose statuses, and the session/cache boundary. It leaves minor gaps such as return format and ordering, but no output schema exists and the tool is simple.

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%, and the description says nothing about the 'limit' parameter or how it affects listing. The schema metadata (type, default, max, min) is present, but the description was supposed to compensate for low coverage and does not.

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 ('List'), names the exact resource ('cached Status/stories (status@broadcast)') and defines scope ('mine + contacts seen this session'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like fetch_status_text, post_status, and delete_status.

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 phrase 'cached' and 'seen this session' gives the agent clear context for when this tool applies, while the sibling list implies live or individual-status alternatives. It does not explicitly name those alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it misses the top tier.

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