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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only, side-effect-free operation, but the description never confirms this or says anything about cost, latency, or side effects. For a zero-param informational tool the risk is low, but the disclosure is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Three tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the call/no-call guidance. Every sentence — including the examples — earns its place by disambiguating trigger conditions.

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?

With zero parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema that documents the return shape, the description covers everything needed to invoke correctly. The only gap is that it never positions itself relative to the 'capabilities' and 'strategy_map_help' siblings.

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 tool takes no parameters, which sets the baseline at 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond that, and schema coverage is reported at 100%.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (work modes available in the TigerTiger Chief of Staff MCP), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not differentiate itself from the similarly-named sibling 'capabilities' or 'strategy_map_help', leaving some potential confusion unresolved.

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?

Explicitly states when to call with three concrete user-utterance examples, and equally explicitly states when NOT to call ('Do NOT call this for general Claude capability questions'). This is the strongest part of the definition.

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