List chores

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the default filter (open) and that results include assignment info. It does not contradict annotations and enriches the agent's expectation of output.

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 sentences with the core action front-loaded ('Lists chores'). No redundancy. The second sentence is slightly awkward ('Optionally needs a status filter or a member') but remains understandable and compact.

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 full parameter schema coverage, the description covers the essential behavior: default status, assignment visibility, and optional filters. It does not mention that 'all' can be used via the status parameter, but the schema covers that, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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 the schema already documents 'member' and 'status' with meanings. The description adds 'open ones by default' which matches the schema's default, but does not introduce new parameter semantics beyond that. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter detail.

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 states a specific verb-resource pair ('Lists chores') and adds key scope details ('open ones by default, with who they are assigned to'). It clearly differentiates from sibling list_* tools like list_shopping and list_reminders, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource and action: use this to view chores. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over mutating siblings (add_chore, complete_chore) or other list tools, and no when-not-to-use statement. The 'Optionally needs a status filter or a member' line is about parameters, not usage context.

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