list_beads

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about filtering (status, priority, type, label) and sorting (priority, then creation date), but does not explicitly state read-only behavior or mention pagination limits beyond schema defaults. This is acceptable for a list operation but not exhaustive.

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 action, and contains zero fluff. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key behavior.

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 read-only list tool with fully described parameters and clear output sorting behavior, the description is adequate. It lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools and does not mention any side effects, but given the simplicity and schema richness, it is nearly 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 input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description's mention of filtering by status, priority, type, and label merely restates what is in the schema, adding no new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('List'), the resource ('tasks from a workspace's beads issue tracker'), and the context. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_workspaces and get_beads_across_workspaces by specifying it operates on a single workspace's issue tracker.

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 implies usage for a single workspace's issue tracking, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_beads_across_workspaces. There is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding between this and cross-workspace tools.

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