list_friction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. 'Read path' weakly implies a safe read-only operation, but there is no disclosure of pagination, permissions, ordering, or side effects. The description does not contradict anything, but it leaves key behavioral traits unstated.

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 definition is very short and front-loads the purpose before the parameter values. It avoids wasted words, though the terse 'HUMAN's triage read path' phrasing is slightly cryptic rather than perfectly clear.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The tool is simple with one optional parameter, and the description supplies the filter values. Still, the purpose and usage context are thin enough that an agent must infer some details from the name and siblings.

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 explain the single parameter. It lists the valid status values ('open | triaged | fixed | dismissed') and clarifies that an empty string means all, which is exactly the missing enum/semantic detail the schema lacks.

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 calls this 'The HUMAN's triage read path,' which implies a read/list operation but never explicitly states that it lists friction items. Combined with the tool name, an agent can infer the purpose, but the description alone is vague about the resource and verb.

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 phrase 'The HUMAN's triage read path' gives an implicit context for when to use this tool, and the status values suggest filtering. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings like triage_friction, log_friction, or list_records.

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