list_party_entries

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the tool lists entries but does not disclose pagination behavior, sorting, or that only certain entry types are returned. The description is adequate but lacks deeper behavioral details.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then provides a usage context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no output schema and simple pagination parameters, the description is largely complete. It explains what is listed and why. A mention of pagination defaults would improve completeness, but the current level is sufficient for basic use.

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 25% (only embed has description). The description does not explain any parameter semantics beyond the tool's purpose. It fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving agents without guidance on required partyId or pagination 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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'timeline entries' with examples (notes, captured emails, completed-task records). It also specifies the context: 'for a party' and 'read the conversation history', effectively distinguishing this tool from siblings like list_entries or get_entry.

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 a clear use case: 'Use this to read the conversation history with a contact or organisation.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context implies alternatives (e.g., get_entry for single entry) and the purpose is well-scoped.

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