list_needs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly declares read-only behavior and enumerates the status values (open, funded, in_progress, completed) plus the NeedType link. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but for a simple read-only list that gap is minor.

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 short sentences front-load the core action and filters, then add usage guidance and a read-only caveat. No filler or redundant restating of the schema beyond useful enum/navigation context.

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?

The tool has four optional parameters, an output schema, and no annotations; the description covers purpose, filtering, usage timing, and safety in a compact way. It could mention default behavior when no filters are passed or pagination, but it is otherwise complete for agent selection.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the filter names but adds some value by specifying possible status values and the NeedType relationship; it does not significantly deepen requester/project_id semantics.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List Needs') and enumerates its optional filters, immediately distinguishing it from singular get_need and write-oriented create_need. It also situates it as the browse tool before claim/fund actions.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent to use this to browse the board before get_need / claim_need / fund_need, giving a clear when. The 'Read-only; create_need writes a new row' line provides a when-not condition and names the write alternative.

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