list_injuries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond the schema: the default filter combines Active and Monitoring, the meaning of 'all' versus 'Resolved', and an explicit instruction to infer rather than ask.

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 well-structured with a clear usage section and a compact INFER block. The only minor flaw is slight redundancy between the sentence 'Defaults to active and monitoring injuries' and the INFER line restating the same default, but the overall size is appropriate and front-loaded.

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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter, an existing output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it returns, when to use it, how to handle the status filter, and how it relates to sibling mutation tools. No important operational gap remains.

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% and the schema already documents the status filter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by specifying the default behavior, the exact meaning of each enum option, and an INFER directive that helps the agent invoke the tool without unnecessary clarification.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List injuries from the injury log') and clearly distinguishes the tool's purpose from update_injury and delete_injury by explaining that those can resolve injuries without a prior lookup. It also enumerates concrete use cases: reviewing the log, answering history/rehab questions, and retrieving an id after ambiguous matches.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool (review, answer history/rehab questions, get an id after ambiguous matches) and when it is not required (before update_injury/delete_injury). It also gives direct guidance on the status filter values, making the decision boundary clear.

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