list_tool_affordances

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states that all records are listed, without mentioning read-only nature, authentication, pagination, or any side effects. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 extremely concise (one phrase) and front-loaded, but it sacrifices clarity. While not verbose, it could benefit from a sentence explaining what tool affordances are.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, and the presence of many similar sibling tools, the description is too minimal to provide complete context. It does not describe the return format or how this differs from other listing tools.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description confirms the scope ('All recorded'), which is useful. No further parameter info is needed.

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 identifies the resource as 'ToolAffordanceRecords', but does not explain what a tool affordance is, leaving some ambiguity. It is distinct from sibling listing tools due to the specific resource name, but could be clearer.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_projects, list_decisions, etc. The absence of usage context makes it harder for an agent to choose correctly among many listing tools.

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