cw_list_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation and the phrase 'observed, and when' indicates topics plus timestamps, but the description does not disclose output format, pagination, freshness, or whether state values are included.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the operation and the returned content immediately.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. It says the tool returns observed topics and timestamps, but leaves 'project-state topics' undefined and does not clarify the response shape or how observations relate to sibling state tools.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics, but there are no parameters to explain.

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 ('List') and resource ('project-state topics'), and adds that it returns observed topics and timestamps. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as cw_get_state, cw_probe_state, or cw_document_state.

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 offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives. An agent can infer that it is used to inspect observed project-state topics, but that is only implied and does not help choose between this and sibling state tools.

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