list_project_mission_runs

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description's added value is the epistemic-scope disclosure: what the ledger does and does not prove. The 'does not prove' clause adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by preventing the agent from over-claiming causality, external effect, or action authority from the returned data. No contradiction with annotations.

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 tight paragraphs with no filler: the first sentence states the operation, the second states the evidentiary value, and the third states the limits. Every sentence earns its place, and the defining information is front-loaded.

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?

The output schema covers return fields and annotations cover safety, so the description's focus on evidentiary semantics is the right call. However, it leaves gaps: parameter behavior (limit pagination, what project_id selects), undefined domain terms, and no routing to related mission-run tools. Adequate for a simple list tool, but the domain is complex enough that a bit more context would be warranted.

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%, so the description carries the burden of documenting parameters, but it says nothing about project_id or limit. The parameter names are conventional enough to be partially inferred (project_id from the tool name, limit as a pagination control with default 25), which keeps this above a 1, but the description adds zero parameter-level meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Read durable mission briefing locks and later action-event bindings') and clarifies the evidentiary role ('ledger proves authenticated project scope and receipt ordering'). It distinguishes the tool's subject matter from siblings like list_project_learning_runs or list_project_training_packs, though the jargon ('mission briefing locks', 'action-event bindings') is never defined and no sibling is named.

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 negative list ('does not prove ... establish causality ... dispatch a worker, or grant action authority') implies when NOT to rely on this tool, giving some exclusionary context. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use it, no conditions, and no pointer to alternatives such as bind_project_mission_action or start_project_mission_run.

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