list_feedback

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It names the source file and explains filtering behavior, and 'List' reasonably implies a read-only operation. However, it does not state what happens if the file is missing, whether output is formatted, or any other behavioral caveats.

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 compact two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main action and resource, then adds filter options and usage context. Every sentence serves a clear 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?

For a simple optional-filter list tool, the description covers the core resource, filter capabilities, and intended use cases. There is no output schema, but the description does not need to detail return values extensively for such a straightforward listing operation. Minor gaps remain around output format and edge cases, but overall the tool is well described.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for all three parameters and even includes enums for type and status. The description only restates that filters exist, which adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because schema coverage is 100%.

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 identifies the verb ('List'), the specific resource ('.mcp/FEEDBACK.md'), and the available filtering dimensions. It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like close_feedback and report_tool_feedback.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'to check existing feedback before creating new entries, or to review reported issues.' It does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives, but the use cases are clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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