list_project_estimate_points

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

The description claims to list 'ALL valid estimate points', but the annotation openWorldHint=true suggests the result may not be exhaustive, creating a contradiction. Annotations already indicate read-only, but the description does not address the open-world behavior.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose, numbered workflow steps, parameter list, and return description. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 description covers the workflow, prerequisites, and return structure (list of EstimatePoint with id/value). Given the output schema exists, it is sufficient, though it could add error handling or validation notes.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It identifies both parameters (project_id, estimate_id) and explains that estimate_id comes from get_project_estimate, but provides no additional constraints, format, or examples beyond basic UUID mention.

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 all valid estimate points for a project, distinguishes from sibling CRUD tools (create/update/delete), and explains the output structure with id and value.

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?

Explicitly describes when to use (before update_work_item with estimate_point), provides a 4-step workflow, and mentions prerequisite of having estimate_id from get_project_estimate.

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