List Checklist List Status Filter Options

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds that it returns a JSON array and provides the API endpoint, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 very concise: two sentences plus API context. It is front-loaded with purpose and usage, with no extraneous information. 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?

For a simple read-only filter enumeration tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, required parameter, and pagination. It provides enough context for the agent to use it correctly.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with full descriptions for all three parameters. The description mentions project_id as required and implies pagination via page/per_page, but this adds no new meaning 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 it lists status filter options for checklist inspections, returning a JSON array. It distinguishes this tool as a filter enumeration endpoint from many sibling tools by specifying its use for paginated overview, finding IDs, or filtering by query parameters.

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 tells when to use this tool: to enumerate inspections for a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters. It specifies the required project_id parameter. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, though the context of siblings is implicitly understood.

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