list_volunteer_hours

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the action is to list entries, implying a read operation, but does not disclose authentication needs, pagination, error handling, or idempotency. Minimal behavioral insight.

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 relatively concise (3 sentences plus an Args block). The main purpose is front-loaded. However, the Args block largely duplicates the schema, and could be omitted or integrated more efficiently.

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 one parameter and no output schema shown, the description gives a reasonable overview of the returned fields (month, activity type, notes, hours). However, it lacks details on pagination, ordering, date ranges, and empty results. Adequate but incomplete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate. It only names the parameter 'school_id' and calls it 'School ID', which adds no semantics beyond the schema's title and type. No format, constraints, or derivation hints.

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 action (list), resource (volunteer hours), and scope (for a school, entries with month, activity type, notes, hours). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are generally about files, calendars, conversations, etc., so no ambiguity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not differentiate from potentially related tools like list_signups. No context on prerequisites or conditions.

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