List Recycled Checklist Templates

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, which fully describe the tool's behavioral traits. The description adds context about pagination and return format (paginated JSON array with metadata), but does not contradict annotations. Given annotations already cover safety, the description provides marginal additional value.

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 at four sentences, front-loading the primary purpose, then usage, return format, and parameters. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. The inclusion of the endpoint and API reference is efficient. No wasted words.

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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it returns (paginated JSON array with metadata), required parameters, and pagination control. It could be slightly more complete by noting default values for page/per_page, but those are in the schema. The description is sufficient for an AI agent to use 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 descriptions for all three parameters. The description mentions the required project_id and pagination usage (page, per_page), which summarizes the schema but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 Recycled Checklist Templates for a given project, specifying the verb (list), resource (Recycled Checklist Templates), and scope (for a given project). The tool name and title are highly specific, and the description provides the exact endpoint, distinguishing it from sibling tools that list other resources.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: to enumerate Inspections for paginated overview, find IDs, or filter by query parameters. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide direct alternatives, which would be beneficial given the large number of sibling tools. The guidance is clear but lacks exclusionary context.

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