List missions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns the same data as MCP resources, which is useful behavioral context. It doesn't disclose pagination behavior (cursor-based) or that limit has a maximum of 200, but those are in the schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence that front-loads the key content (what fields are returned) and adds a useful note about MCP resources equivalence. It's compact and every clause earns its place. Could be slightly more structured with a second sentence for usage guidance, but it's efficient.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the return content well. However, it lacks guidance on pagination (cursor), the limit parameter's role, and how this relates to sibling tools like mission_status. The MCP resources note is helpful but doesn't fully compensate for missing usage context. Given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage, this is adequate but not complete.

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 only 33% (only project_id has a description). The description doesn't explain limit or cursor semantics beyond what the schema provides. However, the description's mention of 'loop/graph progress and resource URI' gives context about what the returned data contains, which indirectly helps understand the tool's purpose. The description doesn't add meaning to the parameters themselves, so baseline 3 is appropriate given partial schema coverage.

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 missions and enumerates the fields included (status, goal, next action, loop/graph progress, resource URI). It also distinguishes itself from MCP resources by noting it provides the same data for harnesses without resource support. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like mission_status or mission_status_job, which could also be mission-related list/status tools.

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 usage context: use this when you need mission data and don't have MCP resources support. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like mission_status or mission_status_job, nor does it mention the optional project_id filter or pagination. The 'same data as MCP resources' note gives some context but no explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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