list_writes

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

With no annotations, the description still discloses the reliability model: verified means a live read-back, upstream means captured but not retested, noop means proven inert, and inferred means a guess. It also says each entry carries a note, though it does not state side effects, permissions, or rate limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence introduces the resource and then defines the four statuses; every clause is needed to interpret the output. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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 no-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description supplies enough context to understand what the list contains and what the status labels mean. It could add an explicit read-only/side-effect statement, but the output schema can carry return-value detail.

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?

There are zero input parameters, so parameter semantics are not a concern; baseline 4 applies. The description adds no parameter details, which is appropriate for a no-argument listing tool.

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 opening clause states it enumerates every write the server can attempt, and the parentheticals define the verification statuses attached to each write. It implicitly distinguishes itself from list_reads by scoping to writes, though it does not name that sibling.

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 only implied: the all-writes scope suggests calling it to inventory available writes, and the status labels suggest using it to assess reliability. It never states when to choose this over list_reads or a specific write tool.

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