Generate Get Generations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with those. The description adds minimal extra context (organizational scope and 'recent' ordering) but does not significantly deepen behavioral disclosure beyond what annotations provide.

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 short sentences with the primary action front-loaded. No filler or repetition; every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and use.

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 description is sufficient for a read-only list tool with well-annotated parameters and safety hints. It covers the main use case and hints at response relevance (ids, status). Minor gap: no mention of response structure, but output schema is absent so this might be expected.

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 all three parameters (limit, cursor, status) are already documented in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-level meaning or clarify usage beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('recent generations for your organization') and explicitly states its purpose ('find generation ids or check status'). This distinguishes it from singular getters like generate_get-generation and generations_get-by-id.

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 clear use cases: to find generation ids or check status. It does not explicitly exclude use of sibling tools, but the context implies it is for listing multiple recent generations, which is sufficient guidance for most scenarios.

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