list_request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that – no mention of pagination behavior, filtering semantics, or return format limits. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also contributes no transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded: the one-line purpose is immediately followed by the endpoint and a compact parameter list. No unnecessary fluff exists, but the structure could be more useful if parameter details were organized with examples or field references.

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 tool with five optional, unconstrained parameters, the description must fill the gap left by missing schema descriptions. It does not explain how 'take', 'skip', 'filter', 'sort', or 'requested_by' are formatted or combined, nor does it mention pagination defaults. The output schema exists but does not make up for the lack of request-building context. An agent would likely construct invalid queries without further information.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It merely repeats each parameter name and says 'Query parameter,' which adds no semantic meaning. For example, 'filter' and 'sort' are left completely undefined, leaving the agent without any idea of expected syntax or values.

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 a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('all requests'), which distinguishes it from single-request retrieval (get_request_by_request_id) and count (list_request_count). However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_request_count or get_request_by_request_id. The description only shows an HTTP endpoint and parameter names, leaving the agent to infer the correct selection context.

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