List States

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. 'List' implies a safe, non-destructive read, and the description adds useful behavioral detail (returns UUIDs and groups, used before state updates). However, it does not mention pagination behavior or any other side effects, leaving some baseline information unstated.

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?

Two concise sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core purpose, the second gives critical usage guidance. No fluff or repetition; the most important information is front-loaded.

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 read-only list tool with an output schema and well-documented parameters, the description covers the essential context: what it lists, why it matters, and when to use it. It could be more explicit about being a safe read operation, but the verb 'List' and the absence of destructive language make that reasonably clear.

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 both parameters already have clear descriptions. The description adds context about why the output matters (UUIDs needed for state setting) but does not explain the parameters themselves beyond what the schema provides. A baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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'), a concrete resource ('a project's workflow states'), and distinguishes itself by mentioning UUIDs and groups. None of the sibling tools share this exact purpose, so an agent can confidently identify it.

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?

Provides explicit context: 'Call this before setting the `state` of a work item' and explains why (the API expects a UUID, not a name). This is clear usage guidance but does not explicitly name an alternative tool or discuss when not to use it, hence not a 5.

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