list_passes

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

With readOnlyHint:true annotation already covering the read-only nature, the description adds value by disclosing the return structure: 'Returns pass objects with IDs, emails, phones, and device counts.' It also mentions pagination and status filtering, which are behavioral aspects. Since annotations cover safety and the description adds return and pagination context, this is above the baseline 3.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('List all passes...'), followed by usage examples and return information. Every sentence contributes content: clarity, use cases, and output structure. There is no redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 has no output schema, the description partially compensates by stating returned fields (IDs, emails, phones, device counts). It also covers pagination and filtering. However, it does not explicitly explain cursor usage or any edge cases, but the schema already documents cursor parameters. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to know what it does and what it returns, without being overly detailed.

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% — every parameter (limit, status, endBefore, startAfter, templateId) already has its own description in the schema. The tool description mentions 'status filtering' and 'pagination' which are already implied by schema, adding no new semantic detail. Thus, the description provides no extra value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 function: 'List all passes for a given template' with a specific resource (passes) and scope (template). It also mentions pagination and status filtering, which distinguishes it from a plain list. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'search_passes' tool, so an agent might wonder when to use one vs the other. Overall, it is specific and understandable.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Use this to browse passes, check counts, or find passes by their installation status.' This tells the agent when to invoke this tool. It does not, however, explicitly mention alternative tools like 'search_passes' or when not to use this one, so it lacks explicit exclusions. That corresponds to 'clear context, no exclusions' (score 4).

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