list_iterations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List' signals a read-only operation and the filter options are explicit, but the description does not mention return format, ordering, or behavior when no PLAN.md is found. Acceptable but minimal.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It packs the action, resource, and filter options efficiently, making it easy to parse.

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 simple read-only list tool with a schema that documents the optional plan_path, the description is nearly complete. The main gap is the lack of guidance on choosing this versus sibling iteration tools and any caveat about PLAN.md discovery failures.

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 description coverage is 50%: plan_path is documented in the schema, and filter has an enum. The description repeats the filter values but adds little beyond the schema. It does not clarify plan_path behavior in prose, but the schema already handles that adequately.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('iterations'), with the filter scope 'open | complete | all'. It is distinct enough from sibling 'get' tools, though it does not explicitly call out which sibling to use instead.

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 implies this is for listing iterations, but it gives no guidance about when to choose this over siblings like get_iteration or get_current_iteration. No exclusions or alternative tool routing is provided.

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