ecn_list

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

The description reveals non-obvious behavior: 'The API clones the project repo and reads ECO/ECN-*.md files.' This informs the agent that the tool may be slow or require repo access. With no annotations, this transparency is valuable.

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 three sentences: purpose, mechanism, and alternative approach. It is efficient, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (cloning a repo, filtering) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides essential behavioral context. However, it does not mention pagination, limits, or error cases, which would slightly increase completeness.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra detail about the parameters (e.g., format of project_id, enum values). Baseline 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 'List all Engineering Change Notices (ECNs) in a project.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Engineering Change Notices'), and the 'all' distinction differentiates from siblings like ecn_get which retrieves a single ECN.

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 provides a usage guideline for local projects ('For local projects, use the `parts` CLI'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. other ECN tools (e.g., ecn_get, ecn_create). The guidance is helpful but incomplete.

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