List saved project fact answers

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses that only *active* answers are returned (an implicit filter), that scope projects:read is required, and that factPath is an internal field not to be surfaced to the user. These are genuine operational and presentation constraints an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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 short sentences with the key qualifier ('Active answers') front-loaded, but the middle two sentences about factPath are cryptic in a tool whose only input is projectPid, forcing the reader to infer they refer to returned fields.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return-value burden; it says only 'active answers' and references factPath without saying what an answer record looks like, whether ordering/pagination applies, or how it differs from the open-facts sibling.

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% for the single required parameter projectPid, and the description never explains it. It instead discusses factPath, which is not a parameter at all, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names the resource ('Active answers already saved on the project') but supplies no verb, relying on the tool name to convey 'list'. It never distinguishes this from close siblings like air_list_open_facts or air_ask_open_facts, so an agent must guess which fact-listing tool applies.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, even though air_list_open_facts and air_submit_fact_answers sit in the same domain. The only conditional context is the permission scope 'Requires projects:read.'

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