list_roi_analyses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose real traits beyond the schema: newest-first ordering, a hard page_size cap of 100, and roughly what a result contains. It stops short of stating the read-only nature explicitly, how filters combine, or what an empty/oversized page returns.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and result shape, then filters, then the cap, then sibling routing — a logical order with no filler sentences. The parenthetical type list is dense but each token is load-bearing.

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 read/list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies result contents, ordering, the cap, filter semantics, and alternatives, which is close to complete. The remaining gap is the meaning of the page and order parameters, which nothing describes.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents agent_id and enriches analysis_type with five concrete enum-like values (tool_bloat, model_optimizer, verbosity, context_cache_waste, retry_loop_waste) plus the page_size cap. However, page and order remain completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving two of five parameters opaque.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (ROI/cost-optimization analysis results), plus the payload an agent gets back (findings + estimated $ savings) and ordering (latest first). It also names the two sibling tools it is not, so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use get_latest_roi_analyses for only the current recommendation per type, and get_roi_analysis for a single result's full detail. The when-to-use vs. alternatives is fully spelled out with no inference required.

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