list_dubbing_projects

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about read-only safety, permission requirements, result ordering, or whether the response includes pagination tokens. Only the implicit 'list' semantics indicate a read operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriate for a simple list tool. The only inefficiency is the vague word 'documented', which conveys nothing verifiable.

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 four-parameter list tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the definition is thin but minimally sufficient to attempt a call. An agent could invoke it, but would not know how to paginate correctly, what status values are valid, or what shape the response takes.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does name page_size, cursor, and status, which helps map intent to the schema. But it adds no meaning beyond names — no defaults, no maximum of 100, no cursor lifecycle, no example status values — and it omits sort_direction entirely, leaving an enum parameter unexplained.

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 names a specific verb and resource (list dubbing projects) and it is clearly distinguishable from sibling mutations such as create_dubbing_project and delete_dubbing_project. However, it scopes itself to only three of the four filters, omitting sort_direction, and the phrase 'documented' points at documentation that does not actually exist in the schema.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives like get_dubbing_status or list_generation_history, and no note on pagination workflow (whether cursor should be looped until exhausted) or whether filters can be combined. Usage is only implied by the word 'List'.

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