accelo_list_signoffs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the max limit of 100 and the domain model (statuses, attachment types), which helps. However, it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or pagination semantics beyond the limit, leaving behavioral gaps for a read operation.

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?

Front-loaded purpose with a brief domain explanation, then a clearly labeled Args section. Structured and mostly waste-free, though the domain explanation of signoffs is somewhat verbose relative to the core action.

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 read-only list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition supplies the needed context: what signoffs are, their statuses, and thorough parameter documentation. Return-value shape is left unspecified, but that is a minor gap for a listing endpoint.

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 must compensate, and it does well: it enumerates filter keys (id, standing, against_type, date ranges, order_by options), documents fields, search, page, and limit with the 100 max. This meaningfully exceeds the bare schema.

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 gives a clear verb+resource ('List signoffs') and adds useful domain context explaining what signoffs are and that they attach to jobs/milestones. It could more explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like accelo_count_signoffs or accelo_get_signoff, but the listing scope is evident.

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?

Usage is implied by 'List signoffs' and the domain explanation, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or when to prefer this over accelo_get_signoff or accelo_count_signoffs. The standing values and filter keys give context but not selection criteria.

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