List progression markers

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

Discloses that the tool returns 'ids/slugs you can reference', which aids in understanding the return value. Also mentions the login requirement, adding behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentences: one stating purpose, the second adding return value and prerequisite. No redundant information, efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Provides the core purpose, return intent, and prerequisite. However, it does not describe optional parameters (limit, search) or output structure in detail. Given the presence of annotations and no output schema, the description is mostly complete but could be slightly richer.

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 only 33% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not mention any parameters. It provides no additional meaning for 'limit', 'search', or 'projectId' beyond what the schema minimally offers.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'list', the resource 'progression markers', and the context 'in this Specter project'. It distinguishes from siblings like specter_create_progression_marker by focusing on listing and providing reference IDs/slugs.

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?

Specifies a prerequisite ('Requires a one-time browser sign-in (specter_login)'), which guides when to use the tool. It implies use before creating entities that reference markers, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives.

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