Lists tracked project items sorted by priority to prevent duplicate proposals.
List tracked items, lowest priority number first. Use before proposing, to avoid duplicates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cwd | No | Directory identifying the project and the tree. Defaults to this session's working directory, which in a git worktree is that worktree. | |
| goal | No | ||
| kind | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| status | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose one non-obvious behavior: results are ordered 'lowest priority number first'. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the default scope is, or what the response contains, so the behavioral disclosure is partial.
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 short sentences and front-loads the primary purpose and ordering behavior. Every phrase earns its place, though the 'tracked itens' wording introduces slight ambiguity without adding denity.
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 list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally viable: it names the operation, sort order, and an important usage hook. But it omits filtering semantics, default behavior, return format, and any mention of sibling history/proposal tools, leaving material gaps for correct invocation.
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 only 20%, with only cwd documented, and the description adds no parameter-specific guidance. The prose does not explain what goal, kind, limit, or status filter or control, so with low schema coverage the description fails to compensate.
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 the core action with a verb and resource: 'List tracked items', and adds concrete behavior with 'lowest priority number first'. It is clear enough to distinguish from goal_list, gate_list, and study_list, though the resource 'tracked items' is somewhat generic and could be more explicit about the underlying feature/decision inventory.
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 an explicit usage context: 'Use before proposing, to avoid duplicates.' This clearly tells the agent when to invoke the tool, but it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.