list_initiatives

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety burden is lifted. The description adds a real behavioral fact not in the annotations: the default result set silently excludes completed initiatives unless include_closed is set. That is the kind of default-behavior disclosure that prevents miscalls.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Slightly telegraphic ('Initiatives with status, owner and target date' reads as a fragment), but every clause carries information.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the only missing piece an agent needs — the default filtering behavior — so it is essentially complete for a one-parameter list 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% and the single parameter's description ('Include completed initiatives') is already documented structurally. The description reinforces the include_closed semantics by stating the default filter, but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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?

Names the resource (initiatives) and the fields it surfaces (status, owner, target date), so the agent knows what listing this returns. It does not differentiate from the many list_* siblings (list_issues, list_projects, list_cycles, list_teams), but the resource itself is unambiguous.

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 second sentence defines the default scope ('Unfinished ones only unless include_closed'), which is genuinely useful selection guidance. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any prerequisite context.

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