List Punch Item Manager Filter Options

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the tool supports pagination and search, and returns a JSON array of filter values. This extends beyond annotations by stating the return format and optional parameters, though it omits details like authorization or rate limits.

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 relatively dense at 4 sentences plus API endpoint info. It front-loads the purpose and usage, then return type, then requirements. While concise, it could be slightly tighter by merging the first two sentences. 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?

With no output schema, the description states the return is a 'JSON array of available filter values' but does not detail the structure (e.g., user IDs, names). It also mentions pagination but not the response envelope. Annotations cover safety, and schema covers params, but the return format is under-specified.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described in the input schema. The description only reiterates the required parameters without adding new meaning. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not improve upon it.

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 returns users assigned as punch item managers with pagination and optional search, distinguishing it from sibling filter option tools for assignees, locations, trades, etc. The verb 'Returns' and specific resource 'punch item managers' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: 'when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' It also lists required parameters. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives among the many sibling filter tools.

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