list_samples

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination and sorting behavior, which is helpful, but doesn't cover other important aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'Lists' implies it). The description adds value but leaves gaps in behavioral 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 efficiently structured with clear sections (Usage, Sorting, Returns) and uses only four sentences. Each sentence adds value, though the 'Usage' line could be more specific. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated first.

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 value documentation) and this is a relatively simple read operation with 3 parameters, the description provides adequate context. It covers the main behavioral aspects (pagination, sorting) and purpose, though it could benefit from more explicit differentiation from sibling tools and clearer parameter mapping.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the purpose of sorting ('Options include "lastModified", "name", "created"') and mentions pagination, which helps interpret the three parameters. However, it doesn't explicitly map to parameter names like 'page_size' or 'sort_order', leaving some ambiguity about how these concepts connect to the actual schema.

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 tool's purpose as 'Lists samples in the inventory with pagination and sorting', which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_recent_samples_summary' or 'search_inventory', which might offer similar functionality with different scopes or filters.

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 some usage context with 'Browse sample collection, find recent additions', which implies this tool is for general browsing rather than targeted searches. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'search_inventory' or 'get_recent_samples_summary', nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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