subscriptions_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP method (GET) and response structure (array of objects), which is helpful. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, rate limits, or side effects, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 concise, with two clear sentences. However, the inclusion of the full endpoint path is somewhat redundant, as the tool name and schema imply the context. Minor waste but well-structured overall.

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 output schema exists, the need to explain return values is lessened. The description covers the basic purpose and response type, but it does not address filtering logic or pagination details beyond what the schema provides. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the parameters (e.g., page, tags[], uids[], per_page, project_id). It only clarifies the endpoint URL pattern.

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 all subscriptions in a project via a GET request. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like subscriptions_create, subscriptions_get, subscriptions_delete, and subscriptions_update, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 usage when needing to list subscriptions, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over other listing tools like notifications_list. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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