List accepted plan decompositions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive nature. The description adds the HTTP method (GET) and authorization class ('board_or_agent'), which provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations.

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 very concise with two short sentences: one restating the title and one providing API implementation details. It is front-loaded with the purpose. It could be slightly more efficient by merging, but it is clear and to the point.

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 operation with one required parameter and an existing output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not mention pagination, filtering, or what constitutes an 'accepted plan decomposition'. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but additional context about the resource would improve completeness.

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% (no descriptions on the parameter). The description mentions the URL path with {id} but does not explain that 'id' refers to the issue ID or describe its format. It adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 'List accepted plan decompositions', which clearly indicates the verb (list) and resource (accepted plan decompositions for an issue). The name and title reinforce this, and the description includes the HTTP method. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like the POST version, but the purpose is clear.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the authorization class but does not explain when to use this GET vs the POST version or other issue-related list tools. No explicit usage context or exclusions.

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