list_instructions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; 'List all stored' implies a read-only, non-destructive retrieval, but ordering, result volume, and pagination behavior are unstated. For a simple read-only list tool this is a modest gap rather than a serious one.

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 tight sentence with the scoping behavior front-loaded and no filler. 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 one-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but thin: it says nothing about what an instruction recipe record contains or whether results are truncated, which is the kind of context the description would need to supply here.

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% for the single optional 'project' parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description restates the filter behavior without adding matching semantics (exact name vs. slug, case sensitivity), making it 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?

Clear verb ('List') and resource ('stored instruction recipes') with an explicit scoping clause about project filtering. It doesn't name the sibling search_instructions or get_instruction, so the agent must infer the boundary between listing and searching, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'optionally filtered by project' implies when the parameter is useful, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over search_instructions or get_instruction. Usage is inferable from the verb but not spelled out.

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