List Micro project-deletion receipts

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: records are durable, scoped to the authenticated owner, include failures, and surface protected-object counts and slug release times. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then adds precise scope and included details. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no redundancy with the title or schema.

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 zero parameters, strong annotations, and an output schema present, the description is nearly complete for a read-only listing tool. The only small gap is that it does not reference the natural sibling micro_project_delete or otherwise state when to consult deletion receipts, though the intended use is still reasonably inferable.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no schema-level semantic gap for the description to compensate for. The mention of the authenticated owner account helps clarify the implicit authorization scope, but there is nothing else parameter-related to document.

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 ('List') and resource ('durable project-deletion progress and failures'), scoped to the authenticated owner account, and adds detail about protected-object counts and slug release times. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling action tool micro_project_delete, which likely triggers the deletion rather than listing receipts.

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 implies this is the read-side tool for inspecting deletion progress and failures, and the sibling list shows micro_project_delete as the likely action counterpart. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus the deletion or other project-management tools, so the guidance remains implicit rather than direct.

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