list_seeds

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It only states 'List seed accounts for the investigation,' which implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly disclose side effects, required investigation context, or any constraints such as pagination or filtering behavior beyond the parameter name 'include_removed' in the schema.

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, brief sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though it may be too sparse to fully support the agent in all use cases.

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?

The description omits important context such as what a 'seed account' is, what 'the investigation' refers to, and what the tool returns. Given the tool has three optional parameters and no output schema, the description is under-specified and leaves the agent without a clear picture of the tool's behavior in context.

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% for all three parameters (access_token, include_removed, investigation_id), so the schema already documents them. The description adds no additional meaning or parameter context beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage.

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 identifies the action (List) and the resource (seed accounts) scoped to 'the investigation.' It is not a tautology and distinguishes from sibling list tools by naming 'seed accounts' as the target resource.

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 list_features or add_seed/remove_seed. It does not state prerequisites, such as requiring an investigation, or scenarios where a different tool is more appropriate.

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