PM Metadata

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

The description discloses that the tool is read-only and returns arrays 'for resolution only', which adds context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by clarifying the limited, lookup-oriented purpose of the data. It also sets expectations about list_features being the richer source. 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and no superfluous content. Every sentence earns its place, providing purpose, usage, and a key warning efficiently.

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 zero-param, read-only lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return format, usage context, and alternatives. It fully prepares the agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional ambiguity.

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 has zero parameters, so schema coverage is complete and no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds context about the output format (id+name pairs), which is useful for a resolution-only tool. Baseline for zero params is 4.

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 the org's PM lists, statuses, members, and features as id+name pairs, using a specific verb ('List') and resource scope. It also distinguishes itself from list_features by noting that list_features carries the richer catalogue, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 instructs when to use the tool: 'Call it to turn a name into an id before create_task / update_task' and warns against guessing ids. It also names the alternative tool (list_features) for richer data, providing clear guidance on tool selection.

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