listInitiatives

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination behavior ('cursor for pagination') and constraints ('maximum 100, defaults to 50'), which adds some value. However, it doesn't cover important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication is required, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'summary information' specifically includes. For a listing tool with 5 parameters, this leaves significant gaps.

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 description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by organized parameter documentation. Each parameter explanation is efficient and adds value. The only minor improvement would be integrating the purpose more seamlessly with the parameter section, but overall it's appropriately sized with minimal waste.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 optional parameters, listing operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers all parameters thoroughly and mentions key behavioral aspects like pagination and limits. The main gap is lack of sibling differentiation and some behavioral context, but the parameter coverage is excellent and the output schema reduces need for return value documentation.

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?

The description provides excellent parameter semantics despite 0% schema description coverage. It explains all 5 parameters with clear purpose: cursor (pagination mechanism with source location), limit (range and default), published (filter by status), priority (range 0-2 with urgency interpretation), and tags (format and filtering purpose). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions and adds meaningful context beyond basic type definitions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Lists all initiatives with summary information.' It specifies the verb ('Lists') and resource ('initiatives') with scope ('all') and output type ('summary information'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'listEntities' or 'listTeams' which may have similar listing patterns.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'getInitiativeDetails' (likely for single initiatives) and 'queryData' (possibly for more complex queries), there's no indication of when this filtered listing tool is preferred over other options. The parameter documentation implies filtering capabilities but doesn't contextualize usage scenarios.

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