List Debriefs

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds important nuance: 'newest first', the presence of has_more when the page is full, that offset is not honored, and that mitre_techniques_sample is a 'NOT AMAN' first-10 alphabetical list rather than a top-10. This goes well beyond the annotations and prevents an agent from making incorrect assumptions.

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 packed with useful behavioral context, but it also enumerful detail of the output fields (new/updated threats, theme, categories, actors, severity counts, and more) even though an output schema exists. Those are not strictly needed and make the description longer to parse, though it remains well-structured and legible.

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?

Even with an output schema and simple parameter, the description supplies all key contextual steps: the listing purpose, the sibling routing, the has_more pagination flag, the offset limitation, and the ordering. An agent can confidently decide to call the tool and interpret its lack without extra refinement.

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 the single parameter limit is already documented with its default and max in the parameter description. The tool description merely repeats that ('Pass limit (default 30, max 100)') without adding any new meaning. Baseline for full schema coverage applies.

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 the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('recent daily intelligence debriefs') and states that results are 'newest first'. It also explicitly contrasts itself with get_debrief, distinguishing the tool from its closest sibling and making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool ('Enough to pick the day worth drilling into') and when to use the alternative ('use get_debrief for a date's full details'), and describes the limitation that offset is not honored. The instruction is clear and directly names the alternative.

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