List Punch Item Types

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, establishing safety. The description adds pagination behavior: 'Returns a paginated JSON array' and 'the response includes pagination metadata', which is beyond annotation hints.

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?

Three sentences cover purpose, use cases, and pagination/parameters. The optional API line adds minor context without bloating. No superfluous information.

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?

Lacks output schema, but description explains return type ('paginated JSON array of Punch List records') and pagination metadata. Covers all key aspects for a read-only list tool. Could mention more filter options, but schema already provides details.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining pagination parameter usage: 'Use page and per_page to control pagination' and notes 'Required parameters: project_id', though already in schema. This slightly enhances understanding.

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 Punch Item Types for a specified project, with specific verb 'Return' and resource 'Punch Item Types'. It adds use cases (enumerate Punch List records, find IDs, filter) that distinguish it from sibling tools like list_punch_items.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use this to enumerate Punch List records when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' It does not exclude alternatives but gives clear when-to-use guidance.

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