list_analyses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the full return shape including the enumeration of review states, which is genuine behavioral context. It stops short of stating read-only safety explicitly or any pagination/permission behavior, but 'List' strongly implies a read.

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?

Two sentences, well front-loaded with the return content before the routing advice. The second sentence is dense but every clause earns its place by naming a sibling and its condition; no filler.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and with no annotations it supplies routing context for a read-only list tool. It is essentially complete for invocation, lacking only minor operational details like pagination or error behavior.

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% and the schema already explains the project filter, including the useful 'unknown name lists existing projects' fallback. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (analyses), then enumerates exactly what the listing contains: refs, open findings by severity, reviewed files, diagram count, and review state with its four values. This is clearly separable from get_analysis and the other sibling 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?

Explicitly frames itself as the entry point ('Start here') and names the alternatives with their triggering conditions: update_analysis to rewrite the overview, refresh_analysis after code changes, create_analysis for a different feature or diff. Explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-duplicate guidance.

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