List API Requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by noting that sensitive URL parameters are redacted, which is a behavioral trait not covered by annotations. It also mentions the 'command bus' mechanism, adding context. No contradiction with annotations.

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 with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose and adds one key behavioral note (redaction). Every word earns its place.

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 (2 optional params, no required fields, output schema present), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, scope, and a key behavioral detail. The output schema handles return value documentation. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating the default behavior of workspaceId, but the schema already covers that.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (workspaceId and collectionId) are already documented in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only implying that workspaceId defaults to the active workspace. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 tool lists saved API requests for the active workspace, with a specific verb ('lists') and resource ('saved API requests'). It distinguishes from siblings like unfour.api.get_request (single request) and unfour.api.list_collections (collections) by focusing on requests and mentioning the command bus context.

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 implies usage for listing requests in the active workspace, with optional filters for workspace and collection. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context of 'active workspace' and optional filters provides clear usage context. Sibling tools like unfour.api.get_request suggest alternatives for single-request retrieval, but this isn't stated.

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