list_right_now

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions safety and hard-stops but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only or destructive, rate limits, or what the 'hard-stop flags' entail. Some behavioral context is given, but more detail is needed.

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 front-loaded with core purpose and includes a necessary safety paragraph. It is concise but could be slightly more streamlined. Every sentence adds value.

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 6 parameters, 1 required, and no output schema, the description is fairly complete on purpose and safety, but lacks details on output format and full parameter semantics. It mentions a response `safety` block but does not explain the return value structure.

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 33% (only 'token' and 'messages' have descriptions). The description adds context about ranking and why-surfaced, but does not explain parameters like 'focus', 'limit', 'agentId', or 'verbosity' beyond the schema.

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 returns the 'Right Now' lane, ranking messages by recency and importance, with why-surfaced reasons and hard-stop flags. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'triage' and 'why_surfaced' by specifying a unique lane and ranking criteria.

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 provides a safety notice about untrusted data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'triage' or 'search'. No guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites is given.

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