list_project_estimate_points

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read/list operation with no side effects, explains the id vs value relationship, and notes a dependency on get_project_estimate. However, it does not cover error conditions, authentication, or rate limits, preventing a perfect score.

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 a summary, use-case paragraph, numbered workflow, args, and returns. Each section is purposeful and there is no redundant information, making it both thorough and efficient.

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 description is complete for a list tool: it covers the purpose, the workflow it belongs to, the parameters, and the return structure. The output schema exists, but the description still adds valuable context about how the fields map to update_work_item, making the tool self-sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The 'Args' section clearly explains project_id as the project UUID and estimate_id as coming from get_project_estimate. It also clarifies that the returned id is what to pass to update_work_item, adding meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 'List all valid estimate points for a project', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_project_estimate_points and update_project_estimate_point by focusing on the read-only discovery of UUIDs for use with update_work_item.

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 explicitly states 'Use this to discover the available estimate point UUIDs before calling update_work_item' and provides a numbered workflow with get_project_estimate as a prerequisite. This gives clear context, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools that should not be used for this purpose.

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