list_points

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read operation by listing points, but does not disclose permissions, side effects, or safety. The mention of default session adds some transparency, but overall behavior beyond the action is not detailed.

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: the first concisely states purpose and output, the second adds a usage detail. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with key information.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers basic purpose and a usage hint, but lacks details on return format, pagination, error handling, or permissions. It is minimally adequate for a simple list tool but not fully complete.

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%, but the description adds value by explaining that session_id defaults to a default session when not provided. However, it does not elaborate on project_id or other potential details, offering only marginal added meaning.

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 lists all point values used for story estimation in a project, showing names, values, and IDs. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools (e.g., list_epics, list_issues) by specifically targeting estimation points.

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 mentions using a default session if session_id is not provided, which gives a usage hint, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or context for selection.

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