list_theses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It declares the tool is read-only and requires the SF API key, which covers the main behavioral traits. For a simple list operation with one parameter, this is adequate; no further behavioral details like pagination are needed given the 'list every thesis' phrasing.

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: first sentence states the purpose and return fields, second sentence provides usage guidance linking to other tools. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description explains the fields returned, that it returns all theses for the authenticated user, and why to use it (to get thesisId). This is complete for its complexity level; no additional details are required.

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 input schema already provides a full description for the apiKey parameter, including the required format (sf_live_...). The tool description merely repeats 'Requires SF API key' without adding new semantic meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and no additional value is provided.

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', specifies the resource 'theses owned by the authenticated user', and lists the fields returned (id, title, status, last evaluation timestamp). It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning it is used to discover thesisId values needed by other tools like get_context, trigger_evaluation, inject_signal, and fork_thesis.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: to discover thesisId values for other tools. It also notes it is read-only and requires an API key. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, though the sibling list makes it clear this is the only list tool.

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