list_agendas

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about read-only nature, whether results are paginated, return format, or the important expansions-default behavior (game context or base game) that determines which cards come back.

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 efficient sentence with the verb front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately compact for a simple filtered-list tool, though it is arguably terse enough to be under-specified (a separate concern from verbosity).

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 no output schema, the description covers the primary filters but omits the expansions parameter entirely, which materially changes the result set. An agent could call it correctly via the schema, but the description alone is only minimally adequate.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters including enum values and the expansions default. The description restates the type and election_type filters but adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case.

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?

Specific verb ('List') plus a concrete resource ('TI4 agenda cards') and an enumeration of the filterable dimensions. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_agenda or other list_* tools, so an agent must infer the bulk-vs-single distinction from the name alone.

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?

It states that filtering is optional but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_agenda, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage entirely from the verb.

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