list_states

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the operation is a read ('Get all states'), which inherently implies no destructive side effects. However, it provides no additional behavioral context such as pagination, ordering, or potential errors. The scoping to a project is a useful constraint, but beyond that, the behavior is minimally disclosed.

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 concise and front-loaded: a single clear sentence stating the purpose, followed by a compact argument explanation. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition. The structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter semantics. It does not discuss return structure (covered by output schema), but it lacks context on expected behavior like whether 'all states' means unfiltered or paginated. Given the low complexity, this is nearly complete, though a note on result size or ordering would elevate it.

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 input schema provides only a type and title for project_id with zero description coverage. The description compensates by documenting the parameter in the Args section: 'The UUID identifier of the project to get states for.' This adds crucial semantic meaning (that it's a UUID and what it identifies), going well beyond the schema alone.

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: 'Get all states for a specific project.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_state (which retrieves a single state) and from other list operations on different resources. The scope constraint 'for a specific project' further clarifies its purpose.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_state should be used for a single state or that other list tools (e.g., list_labels) are for different resources. While the purpose is implied, there is no explicit when/when-not or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name.

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