List Guidance

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) already cover behavioral traits; the description adds no extra context such as pagination, rate limits, or scope limitations, so it does not enhance transparency beyond structured fields.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and efficiently conveys the core purpose with no superfluous words.

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 the presence of annotations and schema descriptions for some parameters, the description covers the basic use case. However, it omits default values (e.g., limit=50) and does not mention result ordering or pagination, which would improve completeness for a list tool.

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 description adds context that filtering is by title or run, but does not explain status enum values beyond 'open/answered' (missing 'dismissed', 'all') or the limit parameter. Schema coverage is 50%, so description partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 states the specific resource ('guidance requests') and filter criteria ('open or answered', 'for a title or run'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like glitch_answer_guidance or glitch_list_pending_actions.

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 implies usage for listing guidance requests but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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