list_calls

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states ordering ('newest first') but says nothing about pagination behavior, default limit semantics, recency/scope of 'recent', or return shape – despite an output schema existing, behavior beyond the return shape (e.g., does it paginate? is it scoped to a session?) is undisclosed.

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?

It's a single short clause with no waste, which is good, but it is an incomplete sentence fragment rather than a front-loaded full purpose statement. Concise but under-specified rather than tight.

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 listing tool with an undocumented limit parameter and no annotations, the description is too thin. It gives ordering but omits scope, pagination defaults, and what the agent should do with results – not enough for reliable invocation despite the output schema covering return shape.

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 0% and the single 'limit' parameter (default 20) is undocumented in either the description or the schema. The description does not explain what limit does, its default, or bounds. With one parameter at 0% coverage, the description should compensate but adds nothing.

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 'The user's recent calls, newest first' is a noun phrase that restates a resource but does not state a verb or action. It's not a full purpose statement – the action ('list/retrieve') must be inferred from the tool name. It's not tautological but it's a fragment, not a clear purpose.

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 siblings like get_call or the rehearsal/draft tools. The ordinal hint 'newest first' implies a browsing use case but the description doesn't state when an agent should prefer this listing over fetching a specific call. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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