List Punch Items

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral context: it returns a paginated JSON array, controls pagination with page and per_page, and includes pagination metadata. It also specifies the HTTP method (GET) and endpoint path. This adds value beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences plus a link and endpoint reference. Every sentence adds value: the first states the core function, the second specifies use cases, and the rest provides links and endpoint details. It is front-loaded with the most important 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?

Given 15 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, pagination behavior, and required parameter. It references filtering documentation but does not detail the response structure beyond 'paginated JSON array'. For a list endpoint with this complexity, it is mostly complete but could benefit from a brief note on the response format (e.g., array of objects).

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 the schema already documents all 15 parameters. The description mentions page and per_page for pagination and notes that project_id is required, which is already in the schema. It does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 all Punch Items for a specified Project, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying use cases like paginated overview, finding IDs, and filtering. Siblings like 'show_punch_item' are for single items, so this is well differentiated.

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 use cases: enumerating punch list records for paginated overview, finding IDs, or filtering. It includes a link to filtering documentation. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context is clear enough. No alternatives among siblings are mentioned, but the purpose is clear.

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