list_experiments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'List all' clearly communicates a read-only operation, but the description adds no extra behavioral context like pagination, ordering, or response format. It is adequate but minimal, not disclosing any potential side effects or constraints beyond the version scope.

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 with no redundancy. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it exceptionally efficient.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient information to select and invoke the tool. It defines the scope (app store version) and the action (list all). Minor gaps include lack of explicit description of the return value or any conditional behavior, but these are not critical for a straightforward list operation.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the versionId parameter, describing it as 'The app store version ID'. The description's 'for an app store version' mirrors the schema without adding new meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter documentation.

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) and the resource (A/B test experiments), scoped to an app store version. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_experiment by indicating it lists all experiments rather than retrieving a single one.

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 phrase 'for an app store version' provides context on when to use the tool, but the description does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using get_experiment for a single experiment. The usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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