List badges

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

Beyond the annotations' readOnly and idempotent hints, the description explains meaningful output behavior: entries are per tag plus '*', and the plain versus '3'-suffixed variants differ in how grace periods and check states are reported. This is precise behavioral context that the annotations do not provide.

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 tightly written sentences deliver the core purpose and the key variants without any filler. The main action and resource are front-loaded, and the additional details about variants are valuable.

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 parameterless, read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema present, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what is listed, how entries are structured, and how different badge variants behave. Nothing essential is missing.

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 are no parameter semantics to convey. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool, and the description correctly focuses on output semantics instead.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Lists the status badge URLs of the project.' It immediately clarifies the unique output scope (one entry per tag plus '*' for the whole project), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that manage checks or pings.

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 implies when to use the tool (when badge URLs are needed) by describing the exact nature of the badges, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it. Sibling tools like list_checks are related but not addressed.

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