List fixed elements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context beyond the annotations: 'Read-only, no undo step' clarifies there is no history entry, and the explanation of fixed elements' relationship to rescheduling provides domain-specific behavioral insight. However, it does not describe output shape or pagination, so a 4 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 four sentences and front-loads the core purpose before elaborating on rescheduling context and the read-only note. Every sentence adds value, though the projectFixed aside is slightly tangential. It remains tighter than most definitions without sacrificing necessary context.

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?

Given the tool has zero parameters, an output schema, and full annotations, the description is complete. It explains the domain concept, the tool's role in the rescheduling workflow, and safety behavior. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this tool correctly 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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description does not introduce any parameters and instead focuses on semantics and usage, which is correct for a parameterless tool. No additional parameter meaning is needed.

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 a specific verb (Lists), resource (fixed element of the project), and defines the element types (task, milestone, subproject) whose dates are pinned. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling rillsoft_project_reschedule by describing the exact relationship between them. An agent can identify the tool's purpose without opening any 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?

It names the alternative behavior (reschedule leaves fixed elements in place) and points to the tools needed to change state (rillsoft_task_update or rillsoft_subproject_update with fixed:false). The condition for using this tool is clear: to find fixed elements before attempting a free reschedule. It also notes the main project equivalent via projectFixed.

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