list_reconciliation_rejections

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: returns in ascending order of rejected_at, describes the empty shape for disabled states (TREE_COMPOSITION_ENABLED off) and when rejection store is not configured. Implies read-only listing but does not explicitly state non-destructiveness or auth requirements. Adequate for a list tool.

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?

Description is front-loaded with the main purpose and well-structured. Each sentence adds value: purpose, ordering, use cases, edge-case behavior. No superfluous content, though slightly verbose for a list tool; could be trimmed without losing clarity.

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 complexity (list tool with output schema), the description covers return shape and important edge cases (disabled state, unconfigured store). References sibling tool unreject_reconciliation_candidate for context. Completeness is high; could add pagination or error handling but not essential.

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 coverage is 50% (model_id has description, server_version does not). The description mentions 'for a model' and implies model_id usage but adds no additional parameter details beyond the schema. Server_version remains undocumented. Baseline 3 applies as schema partially covers, and description does not compensate further.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'list', the resource 'persisted reconciliation rejections', and the qualification 'for a model'. Contextually differentiates from sibling tools like list_reconciliation_candidates by explaining its role in the candidate detector's filtering and its use for rendering the rejected section or finding surrogate ids for unreject_reconciliation_candidate.

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 explicit use cases: 'render the rejected section of a triage view, or to find the surrogate id needed by unreject_reconciliation_candidate'. Also explains behavior when TREE_COMPOSITION_ENABLED is off, which guides handling of disabled state. Does not exhaustively list alternatives, but the context is sufficient for appropriate selection.

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