list_blackouts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It only states the action and pagination option, but does not disclose that this is a read-only operation, what the return format is, whether all blackout windows are returned, or any default ordering/limitations. This is a significant gap for an unannotated tool.

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 a single sentence of seven words ('List blackout windows with optional pagination'), front-loaded with the verb and resource. There is no redundancy or filler; every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with only two optional parameters and no output schema, so the description does not need much. However, it omits any statement about what the return value looks like (e.g., a list, paginated response), whether all blackouts are returned by default, or any filtering/ordering behavior. While adequate for a basic list, it leaves some uncertainty for an agent invoking the tool.

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%, with both 'size' and 'index' fully documented including defaults, bounds, and descriptions. The description's phrase 'optional pagination' adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 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' and resource 'blackout windows', clearly identifying the tool's function. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_blackout, create_blackout, and delete_blackout. The mention of 'optional pagination' adds relevant detail without obscuring the core 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention using get_blackout for individual blackout details or create_blackout for creating windows. The only hint is 'optional pagination', which is more of a parameter feature than usage context, leaving the agent without explicit selection criteria.

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