envelope_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add behavior beyond that. It adds the 'ACTIVE' scope and optional filtering, which is useful context. It does not disclose return format, pagination, or ordering, but for a simple read-only list this is acceptable.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the action, scope, and filters, followed by a two-word safety note. There is no redundancy or filler, and every part adds 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?

For a two-parameter, read-only list tool with no required parameters, this is largely complete: the agent knows what to list and how to filter. The absence of an output schema is a minor gap since return shape is not described, but the operation is simple enough that this does not block correct invocation.

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 does state that grantee and verb are optional filters, which is the core semantic needed for invocation. It does not explain acceptable values, field meaning, or how they interact, leaving some inference to the agent.

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 specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('currently ACTIVE envelopes'), and the qualifier 'ACTIVE' distinguishes it from pending/discard sibling tools like envelope_pending_read and envelope_read_discards. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops just short of full differentiation.

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 implies this tool is for retrieving active envelopes, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus other envelope tools or when not to use it. The optional-filter language is operational guidance, not tool-selection guidance.

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