study_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the return includes relationship metadata (spawned, killed, informed) and frames the tool as a pre-flight check. However, it says nothing about read-only nature, pagination, filtering behavior, or return shape beyond those relation fields.

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?

A single, direct sentence plus an actionable advisory. Every phrase earns its place, though the opening 'Studies with...' is slightly elliptical and could be sharper as 'Lists studies with...'.

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 simple list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, this description provides the essential mental model: a relationship-oriented listing used to avoid re-doing answered questions. It falls short on status semantics and return-value details, but the sibling context and enum values partly fill the gaps.

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?

The description does not explain how the cwd or status parameters affect the result. cwd has a schema description, but status is only given as an enum with no semantic guidance. At 50% schema coverage, the description was expected to compensate for the undocumented status parameter but does not.

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 identifies the resource (studies) and the key content (what each spawned, killed, or informed), making it clear this is a multi-study listing. It is distinguishable from siblings like study_show and study_status by implying a broader relationship-focused overview, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'List all'.

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?

'Check before opening one' explicitly instructs the agent to consult this tool before study_open/study_show to avoid duplicated work. This gives a clear usage context, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state conditions when not to use it.

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