annotations

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, closed-world operation, and the description does not contradict that. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: results are session-scoped ('added this session'), paged, and focused on comments opening with '?'. It does not describe ordering or default paging behavior, but the core behavior is clear.

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 two-sentence description is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately follows with usage guidance and exclusions. Every clause carries useful information without repetition.

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 simple read-only listing tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers purpose, session scope, paging, and alternatives adequately. It could be slightly richer about return contents or ordering, but no critical information is missing for correct invocation.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description mentions paging but adds no syntax or default details beyond what the schema provides, making baseline 3 appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb (List) and concrete resources (names, findings, and open-question comments added this session), plus paging behavior. It also distinguishes the tool from sibling tools `symbols` and `types`, so an agent can identify it without inspecting the schema.

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?

It explicitly states the intended use case ('Use it to resume work') and names the alternatives for out-of-scope cases ('not for binary symbols (use symbols) or user types (use types)'). This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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