List punchlists

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond that: what fields a punchlist row carries and that pages hold up to 100 with a cursor round-trip. It does not mention ordering, rate limits, or whether counts include deleted items.

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 opening fragment ('Punchlists with project, status, open and completed item counts and who the items are assigned to') is essentially restated verbatim in the following sentence, so the first line does not earn its place. The remainder is compact and front-loads the payload shape before pagination.

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 carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so: row fields, counts, assignees, and paging. It stops short of saying how pagination terminates (whether a null next_cursor signals the end) or the default page size of 30.

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?

With 75% schema description coverage, the schema already documents cursor, search, and project_id. The description reinforces the project filter and the page-size ceiling (100) and cursor round-trip, but adds nothing about the `search` parameter's matching behavior, and the remark about status refers to displayed output rather than an input parameter.

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 and resource (list punchlists) plus the scope of the payload: project association, status, open/completed item counts, and assignees. This is clearly distinguishable from get_punchlist (single record) and create_punchlist (mutation).

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?

It notes the listing is 'optionally for one project' and explains pagination via next_cursor, which implies when to use it (bulk retrieval, optionally scoped). It never explicitly routes the agent away from get_punchlist for a single record or mentions what to do when there are no results, so guidance is implied rather than stated.

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