list_update_sets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety and idempotency are known. The description adds that the tool filters by state, which is a behavioral detail beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, result ordering, or how the tool behaves when no state is provided. With annotations covering the main traits, the description adds moderate value.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality. There is no extraneous text; every word serves a purpose.

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 rich annotations and fully described parameters, the description covers the main filtering use case. It does not explain default behavior when state is omitted, but given the low complexity, it is largely complete. The absence of output schema is compensated by the readOnlyHint.

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 coverage is 100% and parameter descriptions are clear. The description merely repeats the state values listed in the schema ('in progress', 'complete', 'ignore'), adding no new semantic meaning. The query and limit parameters are already well described in the schema, so the description doesn't enhance understanding.

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 tool lists update sets by a specific state attribute. It names the resource and the filtering criterion, making the primary action obvious. However, it does not specify the scope (e.g., all update sets or those in the current scope), which distinguishes it from similar list tools slightly less completely.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, such as get_current_update_set, get_update_set, or complete_update_set. It does not mention that for a specific update set ID, other tools are more appropriate, nor does it discuss prerequisites or alternatives.

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