List decision training examples

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already declare the operation is safe and idempotent. The description adds the authorization class but no further behavioral traits like pagination, scope, or effect. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

Very short, but the first sentence is clear. However, it lacks structure; the second line about Paperclip operation is not organized for quick parsing. Could be more front-loaded with key info.

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 presence of an output schema, the description's lack of return value explanation is acceptable. However, the tool is simple and the description covers the basic purpose, but missing filtering capabilities and scope (what 'list' means—all examples for a company?). Adequate but not thorough.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters. It lists the path template but does not describe query parameters (q, kind, author, project) or their meanings. The agent receives no semantic help for parameter usage.

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?

Title and first line of description clearly state the tool lists decision training examples. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools that also relate to decision training (e.g., create, delete, patch). The purpose is clear but not uniquely distinguished.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pc_post_companies_by_company_id_decision_training (create) or pc_delete_decision_training_by_id. It only mentions the HTTP method and authorization class, not context for use.

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