List saved PulpMiner APIs

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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description still adds real context: oldest-first ordering, all-apis-under-this-key scoping, the pageSize floor of 5, the returned fields (including the dynamicUrl template), and the fact that the call is free. It does not mention rate limits or error modes.

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 short sentences, all front-loaded with the most important fact (what is listed and its scope) and no filler. The pagination, return shape, and cost details each earn their place.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (id, url, dynamic flag, dynamicUrl template), and it covers ordering, pagination floor, and cost. It lacks any guidance on total counts or how to iterate pages, which is the only minor gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents id, page, and pageSize. The description restates the pageSize range and the raise-to-5 rule but adds no new parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb + resource ("List the APIs saved under this API key") with the underlying endpoint named, plus the ordering (oldest first) and pagination nature. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like pulpminer_save_as_api and pulpminer_fetch_api_data.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource (retrieve saved APIs) and the "Free" cost note helps the agent decide, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or comparison against alternatives such as pulpminer_fetch_api_data.

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