list_my_missions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool lists user-created missions with optional filtering, which implies read-only behavior. However, it does not mention pagination, rate limits, or any edge cases. The behavior is adequately described for a simple list tool.

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 and well-structured with clear 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections. It front-loads the purpose and usage guidance, but the additional details are efficient and add value without being verbose.

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 listing tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers everything needed: purpose, when to use, parameter details, and return structure. It is fully sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, but the description adds detailed explanations for both parameters, including a list of valid enum values for status and category. This goes well beyond the bare schema which only specifies type and default.

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 'List all missions you have created, with optional filtering.' It uses a specific verb (list) and resource (missions you have created), and differentiates from sibling tools like check_mission_status.

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 includes explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to get an overview of your active and past missions. Good practice: regularly check for missions in PROOF_SUBMITTED status — these need your review.' This tells when to use the tool and provides a concrete workflow hint.

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