timeline_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that group members follow their group, that items after marker_position are rolled back and not part of the model, and that the result can be truncated. It omits prerequisites (an active document) and error behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then return shape, then addressing rule, then example, then item schema. Dense but every block serves a purpose; the item field enumeration is long but justified since there is no output schema.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by fully describing the response envelope and per-item fields, including the rolled-back concept and ref addressing. It could still state that an active design document must exist, which is the remaining gap for a read 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%, so the schema already documents limit, offset, and only_problems. The description adds meaning to only_problems via the example, but says nothing extra about limit/offset pagination semantics beyond what the schema provides – baseline 3.

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 specific verb and resource ('List the timeline of the active parametric design in order, with status'), which is enough to distinguish it from writers like timeline_roll_to or timeline_delete. It does not explicitly contrast with timeline_health, which is the nearest read-only sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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 example 'timeline_list(only_problems=true) -> which features are broken and why' gives a concrete usage context, and 'address items by ref, never by index' is an actionable constraint. No exclusions or explicit routing away from timeline_health or inspect_tree are given.

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