List Seeds

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

readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read operation, so the description only needs to add value beyond that. It does so by explaining what seeds are, that seedId returns a single seed, and that the result includes full step lists and rowVersion. This is useful behavioral context.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the key parameter behavior and prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior, the single-seed variant, and the project-context requirement. It does not describe the list response shape, but the schema documents pagination and the tool name makes the list return clear enough.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by stating that passing seedId returns one seed with its full step lists and rowVersion, details not present in the schema. skip/take are already well described in the schema.

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 ('List') and resource ('seeds of the active project'), then clarifies what seeds are ('request sequences that set up and tear down test data'). This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling list_* tools.

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 operates on the active project and requires project context. It also explains the alternative behavior when seedId is supplied. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the usage context is clear enough.

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