list_feedback

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful traits: read-oriented listing, access-limited scope ('every dock you can reach'), and that the response is a deliberately thin summary. It says nothing about pagination, ordering, rate limits, or what limit actually governs, which leaves real gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then usage in priority order, then the sibling hand-off. Every sentence carries selection-relevant information, though the quoted 'what needs my attention?' framing is slightly chatty.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by characterizing the return ('lean summary') and pointing to get_feedback for detail. The remaining hole is the undifferentiated limit/status parameters, but an agent has enough to call the tool correctly in the common case.

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 0% across three parameters. The description adds real meaning for dockId (omit vs pass and the consequence of each), but limit and status are completely undocumented in both schema and description — including the enumerated status values that would be highly useful for filtering.

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 (List) and resource (feedback pins), and explicitly contrasts its output with the sibling get_feedback ('lean summary' vs 'full fix brief'). An agent can distinguish it from get_feedback, list_docks, and update_feedback_status without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit two-branch rule: omit dockId to get cross-dock open work, pass dockId to scope to one site, and names get_feedback as the alternative for drill-down detail. Both the when-to-use and the route-to-sibling are spelled out.

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