ci_list_bindings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It mentions that route_scopes are included when delegated, which is a behavioral detail beyond a simple list. However, it doesn't disclose any side effects, authentication needs, or performance characteristics. It adequately describes a read operation without contradictions.

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 consists of two sentences: the first states the action, and the second provides usage context. No unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It explains what is listed (including route_scopes when delegated) and when to use it. The lack of output schema is mitigated by the clear behavioral description.

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?

The only parameter, project_id, is fully described in the schema with clear meaning. The description adds no additional information beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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', the resource 'CI/OIDC deploy bindings', and scope 'for a project, including route_scopes when delegated'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ci_create_binding, ci_get_binding, and ci_revoke_binding.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Use this to inspect which GitHub Actions subjects can deploy before editing bindings.' While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context implies it's for inspection before editing, and sibling tool names provide differentiation.

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