List project lessons

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint. Description adds 'Read-only' (consistent) and describes return format as an object with lessons array. It does not detail pagination or rate limits, but for a read-only list with good annotations this is acceptable.

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 covering purpose, ordering, usage context, and sibling differentiation. No filler or redundant 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 output schema present and all parameters optional, the description covers the key aspects: what is returned (lessons with fields), ordering, and differentiation from sibling. No missing critical information for a read-only 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (limit, severity, project_id). The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what schema provides, which is fine for a baseline score of 3.

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?

Description specifies verb 'list', resource 'promoted learning rules (lessons)', and ordering 'highest-frequency first'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tool query_lessons by stating their different use cases (browse full catalog vs. retrieve for specific diff/PR).

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 states when to use this tool ('Use to browse the full catalog of encoded heuristics') and when to use the alternative query_lessons ('retrieve only lessons relevant to a specific diff or PR within a token budget').

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