derivation_list_saved

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

The description includes a Returns section and an example showing the output structure (success, results, count), which helps set expectations. However, with no annotations provided, it omits any statement about side effects, permissions, or rate limits, which is a gap for a tool that reads saved data.

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 well-structured with Description, Args, Returns, and Example sections, keeping each part brief. The example is informative without being verbose, earning a high score for conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the basic return format and optional parameter. Still, it lacks guidance on sibling tool distinctions and category value semantics, so it is minimally adequate rather than fully complete.

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?

The description adds that 'category' is an optional filter, which the schema does not explain. However, it does not provide valid category values or examples, leaving the agent to guess the expected format.

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 tool lists all saved derivation results, using a verb+resource structure. It distinguishes from search_saved by the 'list all' scope, but doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 is provided on when to use this tool vs derivation_search_saved or derivation_get_saved. The example implies it can be called with no arguments, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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