list_initiatives

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It transparently explains how the tool behaves per adapter (e.g., globbing files, querying APIs, filtering statuses), lists optional filters, and describes the return structure. This adds significant behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 relatively concise given the complexity of multiple adapters. It front-loads the core purpose, then details adapter behaviors, then lists filters and return. It is well-structured but could benefit from more succinctness or bullet points.

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 no output schema and three parameters, the description covers purpose, adapter-specific behavior, optional filters, and return format. It lacks error handling, prerequisites, or source activation info, but overall is fairly complete for a listing 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 0%, but the description adds meaning by explaining each parameter: status is adapter-specific, label is a single label match, limit has default 50. This provides context that the schema alone does not, though it could be more detailed for each adapter.

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 it enumerates product initiatives from the active source, details adapter-specific behaviors, lists optional filters, and specifies the return structure. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools that add, fetch, or analyze initiatives.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like fetch_initiative or analyze_initiative. It mentions 'active source' but does not clarify how to set or determine the active source, and lacks context for choosing among adapters.

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