List checks

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 states that the tool lists all checks and optionally filters by tag or status, which conveys the core behavior. However, it does not disclose any details like whether filters are ANDed or ORed, pagination, ordering, or error conditions. For a simple read-only list tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose ('List all checks in the project') and then adds the optional filtering. Every word earns its place, and it is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 list tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description provides enough context to understand the tool's scope and filters. It does not explain return values, but for 'list' operations the return type is obvious. The combination of tags and status filters is not explicitly stated, but the schema descriptions cover individual semantics. Overall, it is complete enough for this simplicity level.

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 schema already documents both parameters (tags and status) with descriptions. The tool description says 'optionally filter by tag or status,' which adds the information that filtering is optional, but this is also implied by the zero required parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is correct.

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 states exactly what the tool does: 'List all checks in the project.' The verb 'list' and resource 'checks' are clear, and the optional filters distinguish it from sibling tools like get_check (which retrieves a single check). It clearly differentiates from mutation tools like pause_check or create_check.

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 gives clear context: it lists all checks, with optional filtering by tag or status. This implies when to use it (to browse checks) versus get_check (for a specific check). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling list makes the intended use obvious. The lack of an explicit exclusion is minor, so a 4 is appropriate.

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