cmmn-list_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only list operation, but does not disclose potential behaviors such as pagination, limits, or ordering, which are typical for list tools.

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?

Two succinct sentences: first states the primary purpose, second describes filtering options. No redundant information, every word contributes.

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 covers the purpose and filtering, but lacks details about the output format (e.g., list of object properties, any pagination). For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 covers all parameters completely, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by enumerating possible type values (task/stage/milestone/event_listener/sentry), providing meaning beyond the schema's generic string descriptions.

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?

Clearly states the tool lists CMMN plan items for a case, specifying the verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like cmmn-list_discretionary_items by focusing on plan items with filtering options.

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?

Indicates filtering by type and status, which provides a clear context for use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools like cmmn-list_discretionary_items.

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