list_sdk_runtime_outcomes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context by saying outcomes are 'sanitized' and 'queued by this MCP process,' which implies process-local, privacy-scrubbed data. However, it does not explicitly state whether listing is read-only, whether it consumes the queue, or any side effects, so the disclosure is incomplete.

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 single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds information: what is listed, the data type, the state, and the process scope.

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?

This is a low-complexity, zero-parameter tool with an output schema present. The description sufficiently identifies the object and scope for basic invocation. It is missing a little contextual framing around the queue lifecycle and how this relates to flushing or executing primitive outcomes, but no critical invocation details are absent.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description cannot meaningfully add parameter semantics. Per the calibration baseline, a zero-parameter tool earns a 4.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'List sanitized primitive outcomes queued by this MCP process.' It clearly identifies what is listed and the scope, and it is distinct enough from siblings like list_business_primitives or flush_sdk_runtime_outcomes, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate from them.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of related tools such as flush_sdk_runtime_outcomes, no context about when outcomes would be queued, and no exclusions or alternative conditions.

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