list_development_states

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally, but the description adds nothing beyond that. It does not mention pagination behavior, what a session scope means, or what the returned list contains, all of which are non-obvious for a paginated read tool.

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 text is short, but its brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency. There is no structure, no front-loaded scope statement, and no information beyond the tool name.

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 tool with nested object parameters, an idempotency key, pagination controls, and zero schema documentation, this description is entirely inadequate. An agent would have to guess at required scoping, page sizes, and the semantics of basis and intent.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and fails completely. It never explains session_id, limit, offset, or the nested basis and intent objects, leaving the agent to guess at the meaning of every field.

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?

"list development states" merely restates the tool name with no added specificity: no indication of what a development state is, what scope is listed, or how it differs from siblings such as get_development_state, development_state, and state. An agent cannot distinguish this list operation from the singular getters on the basis of the text.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative among roughly forty sibling tools that include at least three closely related state-related tools. Nothing tells the agent whether to reach for this or get_development_state.

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