List initiatives

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that listing can span all projects if project is omitted, returns specific fields, and sorts by most recent update. It does not explicitly state it's read-only, but the verb 'list' implies non-destructive behavior. Could mention rate limits or pagination, but adequate for a simple list tool.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence explains functionality concisely; the second provides a specific usage scenario. Front-loaded with the key capability.

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 list tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior, filtering by project, sorting, and proactive use. However, it does not explain the status parameter, pagination, or result limits. It gives enough to use the tool but misses some details that would make it fully complete.

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 0% (no descriptions in schema). The description mentions 'project' and 'status' implicitly but does not explain their purpose or constraints. For example, the 'status' parameter is an enum (active, paused, done) but the description never indicates that it filters results by status. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the agent to infer parameter semantics from names alone.

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 verb 'list' and the resource 'initiatives'. It specifies the output fields (codename, status, last updated) and the scope: across one project or all projects if omitted. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_initiative (single) and list_projects (different resource).

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to call this proactively when the user references resuming past work without an exact codename or project. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and implicitly suggests alternatives like get_initiative for known codenames or searching blindly.

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