dispatch_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses the return structure ({dispatches, total, unverified, unverified_total}), the read-only nature, and the nuanced HMAC signature verification behavior, including how legacy_unsigned and invalid packets are separated into the unverified list. This goes far beyond a generic list description.

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 the primary behavior and uses a compact but information-dense structure. The four sentences each contribute distinct value: filter behavior, return scope, alternative tool, and the important signature caveat. No redundant filler is present.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description is thorough: it specifies sort order, filterability, the exact return format, and the critical edge cases around signature verification. It gives the agent enough context to correctly interpret results and decide when to call dispatch_read instead.

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?

Even though schema description coverage is 0%, the description adds concrete meaning to to_app, from_app, and status by explaining they are combinable and that '' means no filter. However, it does not explain the required app_id parameter or the limit parameter, which remain underspecified. This is a minor gap given the rich explanation of the other parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('dispatch packets'), and precise behavior ('newest-first, filtered by any combination of to_app / from_app / status'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling dispatch_read by explicitly pointing to that tool for a single packet's brief.

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?

Usage is clearly scoped: filtering combinations are enumerated and the behavior of empty-string filters is explained. It explicitly names dispatch_read as the alternative for retrieving a packet brief, providing a direct comparison. Read-only status is also stated, helping the agent know when this tool is appropriate.

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