List bots

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses the required `bots:read` scope, the concrete rate limit (600/min shared across the `default` group), and that the data comes from stored records rather than live venue calls. That is exactly the kind of auth/limit context the annotations cannot convey, though the stored-records claim sits slightly at odds with openWorldHint=true.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and return payload in the first sentence, followed by scope and rate-limit context. The rate-limit sentence is a touch verbose ("Ten a second." plus rationale), but every sentence carries usable information.

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 parameter-less list tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, contents, authorization, and cost. It stops short of describing ordering or any result cap, which would be the only remaining 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No misleading parameter guidance is present.

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?

"Every bot on the account" states an unambiguous scope, and the description itemizes what comes back (state, run mode, script, fleet summary) plus the extra payload of creatable scripts and run modes. This is specific enough to separate it from get_bot_config (single bot config) and list_scripts.

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 only implied: the note that it returns "the scripts and run modes a new bot can be created with" hints it precedes create_bot, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. An agent must infer the selection criteria against ~25 siblings.

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