list_containers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it specifies the scope ('top-level containers'), mentions pagination ('Paginated list'), and indicates the return structure ('root-level containers'). It lacks details on permissions or rate limits, but covers essential operational context.

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 purpose, followed by usage and returns in separate lines, with zero wasted words. Every sentence adds value, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 (1 parameter, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is complete enough: it covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits (pagination, scope), and relies on the output schema for return values. No significant gaps exist for this simple list operation.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by implying pagination through 'Paginated list' and 'page_size' parameter context. It doesn't detail parameter usage explicitly, but the schema's default value and type provide basic clarity, warranting a score above baseline.

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 explicitly states the verb ('Lists') and resource ('top-level containers'), specifying scope ('not nested within other containers') and distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_container or get_container_contents_only that handle different container-related operations.

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 clear context ('Browse main container organization structure'), indicating when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., for nested containers or detailed views), which prevents a perfect score.

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