list_feedback

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool is read-only and that unresolved items are returned first. However, it does not mention pagination, authentication, or failure behavior, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource, then adds item details, ordering behavior, and the orchestration loop, all of which earn their place.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description covers the key output fields, the unresolved-first ordering, and the relevant workflow with sibling tools. It omits pagination and error behavior, but those are not glaring gaps given the simple input schema and read-only nature.

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% and already documents id_or_slug as 'Site id, slug, or unlisted token.' The description adds only contextual framing about the site and workflow, so it is adequate but does not meaningfully improve parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 opens with 'Read viewer feedback left on a site via the Agentation toolbar', clearly stating the verb, resource, and source context. It also enumerates what each item contains and distinguishes this read operation from the sibling resolve_feedback tool.

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 workflow: list_feedback → get_site/update_site → resolve_feedback, which signals when this tool is appropriate in a broader process. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives directly, but the loop makes the intended usage fairly clear.

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