ClockNext: list outcomes

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that the tool returns a list of outcome types with specific fields and serves a lookup purpose, which is beyond just the annotation's safety signal. It doesn't disclose pagination or authentication, but does add some behavioral context.

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 two sentences: one for the action and return fields, one for the use case. No filler words; every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Given the simple tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotation, the description covers the return fields and the primary use case. It does not mention pagination or sorting, but for a low-complexity list operation, this is sufficient.

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% for the single 'active' parameter, which is fully described in the schema as 'Only return active outcomes when true; omit to return all.' The description does not add parameter-level details, so baseline 3 applies.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'outcome types', and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, price, active). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like clocknext_get_outcome by framing it as the way to find an outcome id for a plan's OUTCOME component.

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 provides an explicit use case: finding an outcome id to reference from a plan's OUTCOME component. While it doesn't name alternatives, the context implies this is the list tool for outcomes, leaving get/create/update/archive for other operations.

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