list_exceptions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'recent exceptions and remediation proposals' which implies a read-only listing operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the exceptions are in, whether results are paginated (though cursor parameter suggests it might be), or any rate limits. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 extremely concise - just 6 words in a single sentence. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. While arguably too brief given the complexity of the tool (4 parameters, no annotations), every word contributes meaning without redundancy. The structure is simple but effective for such a short description.

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 there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and 4 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks parameter explanations, usage context, and behavioral details that would help an agent use this tool effectively. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but other gaps remain significant.

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 description provides no information about any of the 4 parameters. With 0% schema description coverage, the schema only provides structural information (types, constraints, enums) without explaining what 'since', 'severity', 'limit', or 'cursor' actually mean in context. The description doesn't compensate for this gap at all - it doesn't mention parameters, their purposes, or how they affect the listing.

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 states the tool's purpose ('List recent exceptions and remediation proposals') which is clear but somewhat vague. It specifies the verb 'List' and resource 'exceptions and remediation proposals', but doesn't distinguish this from potential sibling tools like 'list_bases' or 'list_governance' that might handle different resources. The term 'recent' provides some temporal context but lacks specificity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparison with sibling tools like 'query' or 'describe' that might handle similar data. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone without explicit direction.

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