List news

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

Annotations already declare it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds substantial context: newest-first sorting, the exact envelope fields (items/pagination/notes), the distinction between summary and full body (fetched via get_news), the meaning of can_manage for permission checking, and edge cases like missing module/permission yielding an empty page with notes rather than an error. It also explains how project_id resolution works and that unknown identifiers fail as not_found. This significantly extends the structured annotations.

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 well-structured with labeled sections (Use it, Returns, Pitfalls, Cross-references). Every sentence adds meaningful context—purpose, ordering, return format, safety hints via can_manage, and important edge cases—without fluff. It is long but necessary given the tool's nuances.

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?

The tool has 3 optional parameters and an output schema, yet the description still explains return values in detail (items fields, pagination, notes) and covers pitfalls like empty pages due to missing permissions and unknown identifiers. It also clarifies the relationship with get_news for full bodies, making it complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that project_id comes from list_projects, that omitting it lists across the instance, and that identifier resolution may involve an extra lookup with a not_found failure. It doesn't add extra semantics for page/page_size, but schema already documents them clearly.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: "List project news — the announcements a team publishes on its project overview." It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting that work-package discussion lives in list_work_package_comments, and cross-references get_news/create_news for other news operations.

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?

Explicit usage examples are given: "Use it to answer 'what was announced recently', to find the id of an entry before reading, editing or deleting it, or to check whether a report was already published." The Pitfalls section also clarifies when not to use it (e.g., don't report 'no announcements' without reading the notes) and points to alternative tools for work-package comments.

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