List Efforts

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals this is a safe read operation. The description adds context by stating the output includes Ticket counts and header docs, which is useful since there is no output schema. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as ordering, pagination, or how the root parameter affects the result.

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 sentence that front-loads the main action ('List the Efforts') and includes the most important qualifiers without any unnecessary words. It earns its place entirely.

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 optional parameter and read-only annotation, the description is sufficient. It specifies the key return values (Ticket count and header docs), which compensates for the lack of an output schema. A minor gap is that it does not mention whether results are sorted or limited, but this is not critical for basic usage.

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 the single optional parameter (root) with a clear description of its default behavior. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but that is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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 Efforts in a repo and includes what each entry contains (Ticket count and header docs). It uses a specific verb and resource, and the mention of Ticket counts and header docs distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_tickets or get_board.

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 this tool is for getting an overview of Efforts at the repo level, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives like get_tickets or edit_map. There is no mention of when not to use it or how it differs in scope.

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