fork_list

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only nature, and the description adds value by disclosing that it returns summary records (not full details), supports three states with a default, and focuses on in-flight work. It does not describe pagination or ordering, but with annotations covering the safety profile, the additional behavioral context is sufficient.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('List forks in one state...'). Every clause contributes meaning: state options, default behavior, output type, and a pointer to the alternative tool. No filler or redundancy.

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 a readOnly annotation and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it lists, the filter states, the default, the output type, and the relationship to fork_status. It omits minor details like exact fields in summary records or pagination, but given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the 'status' parameter by listing its possible values ('open', 'merged', 'deleted') and default ('open'). However, the required 'app_id' parameter is left to the schema's minimal 'App Id' label, and the description does not elaborate on its purpose or acceptable formats, so the compensation is partial.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('List') + resource ('forks') + scope ('in one state — open, merged, deleted — as summary records'). It also explicitly differentiates from a sibling tool by mentioning that fork_status provides the full change log for a single fork, which distinguishes this tool's purpose clearly.

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 an explicit alternative: 'Use fork_status for one fork's full change log,' and provides a concrete use case ('so you can find in-flight work units'). This tells the agent exactly when to select this tool versus the sibling, fulfilling the 'when/when-not/alternatives' criterion.

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