list_pinned

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns a formatted list and describes parameters, but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, or error conditions. The read-only nature is implied by the name but not stated.

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 concise with two short paragraphs and a clear 'Args/Returns' section. The OS analogy adds extra context but is not essential, slightly reducing conciseness. Still, it remains efficient.

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's simplicity (2 optional params, output schema exists), the description covers core functionality, parameters, and return format. It lacks details on project resolution behavior or limitations, but is adequate for most use cases.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains both parameters: pin_type (filter options with defaults) and project (auto-resolve behavior). It adds clarity on allowed values and default behavior, which the schema lacks entirely.

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 the tool's purpose: listing all pinned chunks in the current project. The verb '列出' (list) and resource 'pinned chunks' are specific and unambiguous. Although it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, the unique resource and operation make the purpose 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 implies usage context (viewing pinned chunks in a project) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_lookup or pin_memory. No 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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