foundry_list_encounters

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, so the description needs only to add beyond that. It adds the qualifier 'active', which is a behavioral filter beyond mere listing. However, it does not disclose any other behavioral details such as whether the list is scoped to the current world, whether encounters are sorted, or what constitutes 'active' versus inactive. This is minimal but non-contradictory.

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 zero filler. It gets straight to the verb and resource, and the word 'active' is the only modifier. This is as concise as possible while still conveying the essential action.

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?

The tool is a simple read-only list with fully documented parameters and a clear annotation. The description covers the core action and the active filter. It lacks a bit of context about what 'active' means in the Foundry encounter lifecycle and doesn't mention permissions, but given the low complexity, it is nearly complete. The absence of an output schema means a description of return fields could be helpful, but it is not strictly necessary for a 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 covers 100% of the parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description 'List active encounters' does not add any extra meaning to the two optional parameters (userId and clientId) beyond what the schema already states. The params are straightforward optional auth/scope overrides, and the description provides no additional usage hints.

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 'List active encounters' uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('active encounters'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling encounter mutation tools like start_encounter and end_encounter. It also clarifies that only active (in-progress) encounters are returned, not all historical ones.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is the correct choice for checking ongoing encounters before starting or modifying one, nor does it exclude cases where a broader or narrower view might be needed. The single sentence is purely a statement of function.

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