fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that omitting both scoping parameters returns data for every collection — but says nothing about output size, pagination, or cost of the broad default, leaving the caller to infer why scoping matters.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its contents before the scoping rule. The enumeration is dense but each listed item (aliases, defaults, required flags) is distinct information rather than padding.

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 introspection tool with no output schema and two optional parameters, the description covers what is returned and how scoping works. The only real gap is that the caller is not told what the broad no-argument default returns in practical terms.

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 coverage is 50%: `ref` is documented in the schema, but `collection` is not. The description compensates by defining the scoping relationship between the two parameters and clarifying that supplying neither broadens the result to all collections, which is meaning the schema alone does not convey.

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 names a specific resource ('every front-matter field an initiative can have') and enumerates exactly what is returned: statuses and aliases, types, tags, scoring dimensions with defaults/required flags, and free-text fields. An agent can distinguish this metadata-discovery tool from mutation siblings like create/update/set_status without opening a schema.

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 explains how to scope the call ('Give a `collection` or an initiative `ref`; with neither, every collection') but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to sibling discovery tools such as `collections`, `tags`, or `questions`. Usage is implied by the resource it describes rather than stated.

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