list_activations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is EXPERIMENTAL and requires specific identifiers, but it does not state permissions, pagination behavior, return shape, or rate-limit considerations for this list operation.

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 three short sentences, front-loads the EXPERIMENTAL marker, and then states scope and prerequisites with no wasted text. Every sentence contributes directly to correct invocation.

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 two-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential context: resource, scope, required IDs, and how to find them. It stops short of describing return contents or pagination, which would improve completeness.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, including their required status and discovery path. The description reiterates that both are required and points to the same list tools, adding little beyond the structured schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List all activations (syndications)') and scopes it to a specific segment. It also marks the tool as EXPERIMENTAL and clarifies the parent/child segment relationship, making its role distinct from segment-listing siblings.

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?

It clearly states prerequisites: both parent_segment_id and segment_id are required, and it directs the agent to call list_parent_segments and list_segments first to discover IDs. It does not describe when not to use this tool or name a direct alternative for listing activations.

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