List Cost Codes

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description complements by explaining pagination behavior and that the response includes metadata. It does not contradict annotations. While useful, the additional behavioral context is moderate beyond what annotations convey.

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 concise with about five sentences, front-loading the purpose. It includes some technical details like the endpoint path, which are slightly extraneous but not wasteful. Overall, it is well-structured and efficient.

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 list endpoint with good schema and annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains pagination, required parameter, and return type. It omits detailed item structure, but is adequate given the name and schema. No output schema is present, but the description provides enough context.

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% parameter description coverage. The description reinforces using page and per_page for pagination and notes project_id as required. This adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score 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 the tool returns a list of Cost Codes and mentions enumeration of Work Breakdown Structure records. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sync_cost_codes by emphasizing paginated overview and filtering capabilities. The verb 'list' and resource 'Cost Codes' are specific.

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 advises when to use this tool: for paginated overview, finding IDs, or filtering by query parameters. It also notes the required project_id parameter. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative use cases or mention sibling tools like sync_cost_codes for bulk operations, which would improve guidance.

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