list_funnels

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains that it lists all funnels and what fields are returned, which is a strong signal of a read-only operation. However, it does not mention potential limitations (e.g., pagination, filtering, auth) or whether 'every' truly means all across all scopes, leaving a minor gap. Still, for a zero-parameter list tool, the transparency is solid.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and output, followed by a precise usage hint. Every word earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 simple list operation with zero parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and usage context sufficiently. The output schema handles return details, so the description does not need to explain them further. The explicit 'Start here' guidance ties it well to the sibling-tool context.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the description naturally omits parameter details. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies when there are no parameters to describe, and this description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 action ('List every SigNoz trace funnel') and the specific resource, including the returned fields (id, name, step definitions). It also differentiates from sibling tools by framing the use case ('need its id', 'check whether a funnel already exists before creating a duplicate'), which implies a read-only listing versus the create/delete/analytics tools.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Start here when you have a funnel name but need its id, or to check whether a funnel already exists before creating a duplicate.' This provides clear situational context and implicitly contrasts with the create_funnel sibling, satisfying the when/alternatives guidance.

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