getNewsListByProject

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is already known to be read-only and the description aligns with that. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond 'list', such as output format, pagination behavior, or the purpose of the 'nometa' parameter. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description contributes minimal extra value, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single concise sentence with no waste or unnecessary words. It is efficiently short, though it lacks any structure like examples or parameter notes. Given its brevity, it is appropriately sized but could benefit from a bit more detail.

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 tool has a nested pathParams/queryParams structure with no descriptions, no output schema, and no parameter guidance. The description is far too incomplete for an agent to know how to invoke it correctly, especially the required format enum and the meaning of query parameters. With zero schema coverage and no return-type information, this is severely deficient.

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 0% — none of the five parameters (format, projectId, limit, nometa, offset) are described in the schema. The description only hints that projectId scopes the list, but gives no meaning for format, limit, offset, or the const nometa. Since there are no schema descriptions, the description must carry the full burden and it fails to do so.

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 the verb 'List', resource 'news', and scoping 'by project', which is clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling getNewsList (which likely returns all news) or getNews (single item). The 'by project' phrase implies the distinction but doesn't state it.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention getNewsList as a broader alternative, nor any exclusions. The agent must infer based solely on the 'by project' phrasing, with no explicit context or prerequisites.

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