zeph_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety is clear. The description adds behavioral context like 'list recent' and 'avoid duplicates' (consistent with idempotentHint=true). No contradictions.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. Efficiently conveys purpose and usage scenarios.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, complete annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), and full schema, the description adequately covers purpose and use cases. No output schema needed per rules. It could mention ordering (recent) is implicit, but not required.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for both parameters (limit and type). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List recent push notifications' with a specific verb and resource, and adds usage context like checking history, avoiding duplicates, or referencing messages. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like zeph_notify (send) and zeph_dismiss (dismiss).

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 explicitly says 'Use this to check notification history, avoid duplicates, or reference previous messages,' providing clear scenarios. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or naming alternatives, but the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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