list_annotations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'stable filters and pagination', hinting at predictable behavior and pagination support. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only (safe to call multiple times), whether it requires authentication, or what happens with invalid parameters. The description adds some value but misses key behavioral traits.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action 'list annotations' and adds key qualifiers. It is efficient and to the point, with no unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from usage hints) but overall earns a high score for brevity.

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 has 8 parameters (all with schema descriptions), an output schema, and is one of many sibling tools, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on return format, limits, or filtering behavior that the output schema might not fully convey. The description is functional but not comprehensive for complex use cases.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add any parameter details beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions 'filters and pagination' generically, but the schema already documents parameters like 'offset', 'max_results', and 'image_path'. The description adds no new semantic value over the 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 verb 'list' and the resource 'annotations' with the qualifier 'with stable filters and pagination'. The purpose is clear and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'delete_bbox_annotation' or 'add_bbox_annotations' by implying a read-only listing operation. However, the description does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling 'preview_annotations', which might also list annotations, leaving some 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'preview_annotations' or the various annotation CRUD siblings. It does not specify prerequisites (e.g., dataset must exist) or when to use filters. The agent must infer usage from the parameter schema alone, which is insufficient for decision-making.

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