List all guidance hints for a project, showing text, source, and active status, so you can check existing guidance before adding new hints and avoid duplicates.
List all guidance hints accumulated for a project. Shows the text, source, and active status of each hint. Use before adding new guidance to avoid duplicates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | The project ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.22.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the returned fields, which is useful, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or result size. Adequate but not rich against the annotation coverage.
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 tight sentences: what it does, what it returns, when to use it. Front-loaded with the core action and zero filler.
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?
No output schema exists, but the description compensates by naming the returned fields (text, source, active status). For a single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, this is close to complete, though ordering/scope of 'all' remains unspecified.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with a single documented project_id parameter, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only reinforces 'for a project' without adding format, ID-source, or scoping detail beyond the schema.
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 and resource ('List all guidance hints accumulated for a project') and adds what each item exposes (text, source, active status). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling aethis_list_domain_guidance, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
'Use before adding new guidance to avoid duplicates' gives a clear, actionable condition for when to call it, tied to the sibling aethis_add_guidance. No explicit when-not or named alternative is given, keeping it below a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.