list_destinations

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

Annotations establish the read-only, non-destructive safety profile. The description adds critical behavioral context absent from annotations: authentication requirements ('requires IdeaLift authentication'), cost model ('Normalizing ideas is free, committing requires connection'), and workflow integration ('After normalizing an idea...'). Minor gap on error states or empty result handling.

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?

Excellent structural organization with clear visual hierarchy: purpose summary → value proposition → explicit usage conditions → authentication note. Every sentence earns its place; no redundancy or tautology. The front-loading of purpose before guidelines allows quick scanning.

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 parameter-less read operation with annotations covering safety, the description is highly complete. It compensates for the missing output schema by enumerating destination types (GitHub, Jira, Linear). Minor deduction for not explicitly describing the return structure format, though the enumerated examples provide sufficient inference.

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?

With zero parameters in the input schema, the baseline score applies. The description correctly assumes no parameter explanation is needed, focusing instead on contextual usage guidance.

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 ('List') and resource ('connected COMMIT destinations'), immediately clarifying scope. It distinguishes the resource type with concrete examples (GitHub repos, Jira projects, Linear teams), making it unambiguous what this tool retrieves compared to siblings like 'list_ideas' or 'list_signals'.

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?

Explicit 'USE this tool when' and 'DO NOT use this tool when' sections provide clear workflow boundaries. It specifically references sibling tool 'normalize_idea' as both a prerequisite trigger and an alternative to inline options, directly addressing when to invoke vs. when to skip. This is exemplary guidance.

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