nexo_outcome_list

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention that it is a read-only operation, lacks details on pagination (though limit parameter suggests it), ordering, error handling, or what constitutes a 'tracked outcome'. The description is insufficient.

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, which is concise, but it lacks the informative structure needed. It front-loads the main action but omits necessary details. It is not egregiously long but fails to convey enough information.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, pagination behavior, valid parameter values, or error conditions. A complete description would provide a clearer picture for the agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions that filtering is by 'status' and/or 'action type', which matches the parameters, but provides no valid values, examples, or formats. The limit parameter is not explained. The description adds little beyond parameter names.

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 verb 'list' and the resource 'tracked outcomes', and specifies filtering by status and/or action type. It distinguishes from non-list tools like nexo_outcome_register or nexo_outcome_cancel, but does not explicitly differentiate from other list tools among the many 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as nexo_outcome_check or other listing tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.

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