List Woodpecker instances

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

With no annotations provided, the description adds useful behavioral context: the check parameter verifies reachability and token validity. It doesn't mention side effects, but for a read-only list operation, no side effects are expected.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a concise usage tip. Every word earns its place.

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 tool is simple with one optional parameter; the description explains the core behavior and the check option well. Return format is implied by 'lists' but not explicitly described, which is a minor gap.

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 schema already fully describes the only parameter (check) with a clear explanation, so the description adds minimal new semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states 'Lists the configured Woodpecker CI instances' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools that operate on repos, pipelines, and logs.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the purpose as a listing operation is clear from the name and sibling context, so usage is implied. It does provide usage guidance for the check parameter.

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