chim_list_retros

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that this is a read operation ('Lists') and that pagination is supported. However, it does not describe return format, default behavior, or any access constraints. This is acceptable for a simple list tool but leaves some gaps.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place; the API endpoint and pagination note are useful but do not bloat the text.

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 the tool's simplicity (list operation, 3 optional params) and no output schema, the description plus schema provide enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly. The endpoint reference and pagination hint complete the picture. Sibling tools further clarify its role.

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 all three parameters (page, search, page_size) are already well-documented in the schema. The description only adds a generic note about pagination, providing no additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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 'Lists retrospectives created in CHIM' with the specific verb 'Lists' and the resource 'retrospectives', distinguishing it from sibling tools like chim_list_changes and chim_list_outages. Including the API endpoint adds specificity.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for listing retrospectives, which implies use when retro data is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling names make the distinction obvious. Mentions pagination query params, giving context on how to iterate results.

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