fcrm list automations

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the required capability (fcrm_read_funnels or fcrm_write_funnels) and the enforcing policy (FunnelPolicy::verifyRequest()). The caveat that the applicable capability 'depends on the action' is slightly odd for a read-only list tool but not contradictory.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a compact capability summary. The trailing capability/policy block is somewhat boilerplate but short and informative, with no wasted prose.

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?

With 11 optional parameters, full schema coverage, and annotations covering the safety profile, the definition is close to complete; it also states the auth capability requirement. The main gap is the absence of an output schema with no description of the return shape, though pagination is at least implied.

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 11 parameters are already documented in the schema; the baseline is 3. The description restates a subset (title search, label filtering, trigger inclusion) without adding syntax, defaults, or constraints beyond what the schema provides (e.g., page/per_page limits, sort_type enum).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve a paginated list of automation funnels') plus the supported operations (sort, search by title, filter by label IDs, optional triggers). This clearly distinguishes it from contact/feed/form siblings, but does not explicitly contrast it with the other fcrm list/search tools.

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 enumerates capabilities (sorting, title search, label filtering, trigger inclusion), which implies when each feature applies, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives among the many sibling list tools. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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