list_prayers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only says the tool lists active or answered prayer requests, but does not clarify that it is read-only, what data it returns, whether archived items are excluded, or how the default status works. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no fluff or repetition, earning every word.

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?

This is a very simple tool, yet the description still misses essential context: it does not cover the full set of status options available in the schema, does not mention the default status behavior, and provides no information about the return payload. The mismatch between prose ('active or answered') and schema ('archived') creates a notable completeness 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 schema has one parameter with an enum (active/answered/archived) but no textual description. The description adds partial meaning by naming 'active or answered', but it omits 'archived' and does not explain the default value or that the parameter filters results. This is insufficient compensation for the 0% schema coverage.

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 action ('Lista' = Lists) and the resource ('pedidos de oração' = prayer requests), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like create_prayer_request or answer_prayer. However, it only mentions 'active or answered' statuses, omitting the 'archived' status present in the schema, which introduces slight ambiguity.

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 this is the go-to tool for viewing prayer requests, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention that create_prayer_request or answer_prayer handle other operations. The usage context is implied but not instructed.

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