list_user_recent_patches_evergreen

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses auto-detection of project_id, returned list of available IDs if undetermined, and that it returns patch IDs. Lacks mention of rate limits or authentication details beyond bearer token.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with core purpose. No wasted words; structure logically flows from purpose to usage to parameter details.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values not needed. Covers auto-detection behavior and project_id handling, but omits pagination or historical depth. Generally sufficient for a list tool.

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 100% (baseline 3), but description adds valuable context: usage tips for limit, auto-detection behavior for project_id, and bearer token override. Enhances parameter understanding beyond schema.

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 'Retrieve the authenticated user's recent Evergreen patches/commits with their CI/CD status', specifying verb, resource, and scope. Distinguishes from siblings by focusing on user's recent patches.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this to see your recent code changes, check patch status...' and provides guidance on handling missing project_id (ask user). Differentiates from sibling tools.

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