question_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the two-group segmentation, 'defaulted = acted on by default but still reversible', and oldest-first ordering within groups. It stops short of describing return shape or volume, so not a 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and grouping, then exclusions and the sibling pointer. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully characterizes the return set (two ordered groups, exclusions applied). For a simple no-param list tool this is close to sufficient, though it omits any sense of result volume or per-item fields.

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?

The tool takes no parameters and schema coverage is reported at 100%, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4.

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) and resource (this project's pending and defaulted questions) with explicit scope and grouping. It clearly distinguishes itself from question_get by naming that sibling for single-item reads.

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?

Gives explicit inclusion criteria (pending, then defaulted) and exclusions (answered and withdrawn are not listed), plus the alternative to use for reading an individual question. An agent needs no inference to decide when to call this.

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