Read a work-state list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail — exact-as-written return, the 'No list named ...' missing-case message, and per-project scoping — though it doesn't mention auth or error behavior beyond the not-found case.

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?

Four short sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the core action and immediately following with constraints and edge-case behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter read with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description covers purpose, scoping, missing-case behavior, and return format. No output schema exists, but the JSON-array return and not-found message are described, so it is complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds meaning by explaining the lookup semantics (per project) and the relationship to work_state_write naming. The list/project parameters are already documented in the schema, so this stays modestly above baseline.

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?

Specific verb+resource: reads a named list saved by work_state_write and returns its items as a JSON array. Explicitly ties to the sibling work_state_write, so an agent can distinguish read from write without opening the schema.

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?

Names the counterpart tool (work_state_write) as the source of the lists and clarifies per-project lookup. It implies when to use it (retrieve a saved list) but doesn't explicitly state exclusions or alternatives among other siblings like search or get_observations.

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