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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful context about projectId semantics (any project id from Jira, Trello, or standalone) and the '__global__' special value, plus that returned ids work with update/delete tools. It does not describe return format, but that's not critical for a list tool.

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 informative but slightly verbose, with four sentences. It front-loads the main purpose and special case, then covers usage and caution. The inconsistency about the update tool adds unnecessary confusion but the structure is otherwise logical.

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 parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main points: what it lists, the special '__global__' case, relation to other tools, and when to use it. The contradictory statement about update tool detracts from completeness, but the core usage is well covered.

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 describes projectId as a project id or '__global__'. The description adds valuable context: 'any project id you use elsewhere with mFlow — Jira, Trello, or standalone' clarifies accepted values beyond the schema's minimal description. This goes beyond what the schema provides.

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 knowledge/documentation entries) and the resource (for a project), and distinguishes it from siblings by explicitly naming update_knowledge_doc, delete_knowledge_doc, and create_knowledge_doc. The special '__global__' case adds precision.

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 gives explicit guidance to use this tool before create_knowledge_doc to check for duplicates, and explains the consequence of creating again. However, it also states 'there is no update tool yet' which contradicts the sibling list that includes update_knowledge_doc, potentially misleading the agent about available alternatives.

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