fork_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, covering the read-only and non-destructive nature. The description adds pagination behavior (returns items and next_cursor, pass next_cursor as cursor) which is valuable beyond annotations. There is no contradiction, but the description doesn't disclose other behaviors like rate limits or default state filtering details beyond what's implied.

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 highly efficient, front-loading the core purpose and state options, then adding pagination details and a pointer to the alternative. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, pagination protocol, and usage distinction. No fluff or repetition of schema 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?

For a list tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it lists, the state parameter's meaning, pagination handling, and a sibling alternative. It doesn't mention the limit parameter's default or allowed range, but that's minor since the schema has defaults. Given the annotations cover safety, this is nearly 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%, so the description must compensate for parameter understanding. It explicitly explains the 'status' parameter by listing 'open', 'merged', 'deleted' with default 'open', and explains the 'cursor' parameter by describing the pagination flow (pass next_cursor as cursor). This goes beyond the schema's minimal property definitions and provides actionable semantic guidance.

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?

Description clearly states 'List forks in one state' with specific states enumerated, and distinguishes it from fork_status as a summary vs full log. The verb 'List' plus resource 'forks' and filtering by state makes purpose unambiguous and differentiates from siblings like fork_status and fork_log.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use (find in-flight work units) and mentions using fork_status for a single fork's full change log, which serves as an alternative. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention other alternatives like fork_log, so it's strong but not exhaustive.

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