ispw_list_assignments

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting the default SRID source, the response formats, and that it returns a formatted list or error message.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then uses clear Args, Returns, and Examples sections. It is appropriately sized and each section contributes useful invocation guidance without excessive prose.

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 presence of annotations and an output schema, the description provides more than enough context: it covers purpose, all input fields, defaults, filtering modes, output format, and examples. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke the tool 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?

Although the context reports 0% schema description coverage, the description documents every nested parameter: srid with its env-var default, level with allowed DEV/INT/ACC/PRD values, assignment_id filtering, and response_format defaults. The examples further clarify how these parameters are combined in practice.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List ISPW assignments for a specific SRID.' It also clarifies the domain concept by explaining that assignments are containers grouping related changes, which helps distinguish this listing tool from sibling getters and creators.

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 clearly explains that the tool retrieves all assignments or filters by level or assignment ID, and provides concrete examples for each mode. It does not explicitly contrast this with siblings such as ispw_get_assignment, so it stops short of full when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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