list_signups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only list operation and describes the output structure, but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, pagination behavior (e.g., order, total count), or authentication requirements. The disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise—two sentences plus an argument list—and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, output summary, cross-reference to get_post, and parameter definitions. It could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) but is efficient.

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 has only 2 parameters and an output schema (not shown), so the description covers the basic functionality and output fields (title, progress, author). However, it misses details like the feed_id (referenced in the cross-reference), sorting, filtering, or error behavior. It is adequate for a simple list tool but lacks completeness for an agent to fully understand all aspects.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It provides short explanations for school_id ('School ID') and page ('Page number for pagination (default: 1)'), which adds value beyond the bare schema. However, it lacks specifics like valid value ranges, format, or examples, so it is only moderately helpful.

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 starts with a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource: 'sign-up and RSVP posts for a school', with examples of types (item donations, volunteer slots, event RSVPs). It distinguishes from sibling tool get_post by advising to use that for full details, making the purpose distinct.

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 guidance on what the tool returns (title, progress, author) and explicitly mentions an alternative: 'Use get_post with the feed_id to see full signup details'. However, it does not explain when not to use this tool versus other siblings like list_feeds, but the advice is sufficient for basic differentiation.

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