A project's directory choices

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

Annotations already establish this as a read-only, closed-world operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavior: it lists the possible states, explains that suggested/open/locked are shown by default, and clarifies that counts cover all states.

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 tightly written sentences with no waste. The core scope is front-loaded, and the second sentence clarifies default behavior and counts.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned: catalog directories grouped by state, with default filtering and count coverage. Pagination is left to the schema, which is acceptable given its 100% coverage, but the description could have mentioned it briefly.

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 schema already documents parameters, but the description adds meaning beyond the enum values by explaining that 'suggested' is the auto pick and 'locked' includes what unlocks it. It also restates the default state selection, which helps interpret the 'states' parameter.

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 resource: every catalog directory as seen by one project, with the possible states enumerated. It is specific enough for an agent to understand the tool, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like find_directories or add_directories.

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?

Usage is implied by 'as seen by one project' and the default state filtering, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find_directories. An agent can infer the context but is not routed away from sibling tools.

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