list_interactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention important aspects such as pagination, ordering (e.g., most recent first), error handling if the bin ID is invalid, or whether the operation affects the bin. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what the schema indicates.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource. It contains no unnecessary words or repetitions, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is mostly adequate but insufficient in context. It does not specify the order of returned interactions (e.g., chronological), list any constraints, or mention what the response format looks like. This omission may leave an agent uncertain about the output.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters: binId ('The bin ID') and limit ('Number of interactions to return (default 10, max 50)'). The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation.

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 verb 'list' and the resource 'captured HTTP requests (interactions)' with the context 'for a bin'. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_bins (which lists bins) and list_mock_captures (which returns captured mock endpoint requests).

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 that this tool is used to list interactions for a specific bin, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites. The context is clear enough for basic use, but lacks exclusion criteria.

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