List constraints

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state permissions, return format, pagination, or whether listing mutates anything, and 'list active constraints' sits awkwardly against an include_inactive flag that implies inactive ones are retrievable too.

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?

A single tight sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. No wasted words, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing details noted above.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the description leaves include_inactive and the return shape entirely undefined, so an agent cannot confidently invoke the filter options.

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 must compensate. It loosely explains the path parameter's scope-filtering meaning but says nothing about include_inactive, leaving half the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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?

States a clear verb+resource ('List constraints') with a scope qualifier ('active'). It distinguishes the tool reasonably from decision-centric siblings like record_decision and search_decisions, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative listing tool.

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?

The phrase 'optionally only those whose scope covers a path' hints at when the path filter applies, but there is no guidance on when to use this versus check_conflicts or search_decisions, and no explanation of include_inactive's role.

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