List saved project choices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: an explicit auth requirement ('Requires projects:read') and a semantic key for the returned posture states (stands/conflicts/settled), including the prompt to re-ask on 'conflicts'. Missing pagination/result-shape notes.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation, then the posture enumeration, then the auth caveat — a sensible order with no filler sentences. The posture clause is dense but each element earns its place by defining return states.

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 carries the return-value burden and partially does so by defining the three posture values. It omits the remaining fields returned per decision and any pagination behavior, so an agent can interpret states but not the full response.

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 0% and both required parameters are undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate fully. It maps roles loosely ('for a project' → projectPid, 'judged against assessmentPid' → assessmentPid), which helps, but does not explain PID format or how assessmentPid is chosen, leaving the agent to infer.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('saved choices for a project'), and the read counterpart is distinguishable from the write sibling air_record_project_decision. It does not explicitly name that sibling, but the read/write split is inferable. Clear enough to select correctly.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no reference to the alternative air_record_project_decision or to other list tools. The 'ask again' note inside the conflicts definition hints at action but is about interpreting a result, not about when to call this tool.

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