reasoning_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the sort order (access_count then recency), which is genuinely useful behavioral detail, but says nothing about pagination, result count limits, or what a returned chain looks like.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler that front-loads the resource and the ordering rule. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers the essentials: what is listed and in what order. It would be complete with a brief note on how it relates to reasoning_search as the retrieval alternative.

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 100%, so both parameters (limit with default 50, project defaulting to active) are already documented. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline.

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 and resource ('List stored reasoning chains') and even adds the ranking rule, so the action is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling reasoning_search, so an agent must infer the browse-vs-query split on its own.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus reasoning_search, which is the obvious alternative sibling. The only contextual cue is the ordering rule, which describes output behavior rather than usage conditions.

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