list-eportfolios

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

With readOnlyHint=true already declared, the description adds meaningful context by specifying the returned fields (id, name, public flag, workflow state, timestamps) and confirming the scope is all ePortfolios for the user. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Single sentence with a clear verb and return field list. Front-loaded with action and scope, no filler words or redundancy. Every word earns its 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?

For a simple read-only list tool with one parameter, the description fully covers purpose, scoping, and return values. Since there is no output schema, the explicit list of returned fields fills that gap. No significant missing context.

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 coverage is 100% as the only parameter userId is fully documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'belonging to a user' reinforces the parameter meaning but does not add new semantics or format details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('List') plus resource ('ePortfolios') and scoping ('belonging to a user'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get-eportfolio and get-eportfolio-pages. It also lists return fields, further clarifying the operation.

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 clearly implies this tool is for fetching all ePortfolios for a given user, which is distinct from retrieving a single ePortfolio or its pages. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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