peoplehub_list_reworks

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool lists reworks/bugs; it does not mention return structure, pagination, session/auth requirements, error behavior, or any side effects. 'Lista' implies a read operation, but little else is disclosed.

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 one compact sentence with the core action front-loaded. The parenthetical is concise but relies on the undefined acronym 'AST', which slightly reduces clarity. There is no wasted wording.

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 simple one-parameter list operation, the essential calling information is present and the schema covers the parameter fully. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explain what the returned list contains beyond 'reworks/bugs', nor does it mention session prerequisites or interpret the AST jargon.

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 100%, so the parameter is already documented with a type, description, and example. The description adds a derivation hint ('actividad_id = first segment of the AST'), which could be useful in context but is cryptic and unexplained. Overall, it adds only marginal value beyond the schema.

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 ('Lista') and resource ('reworks/bugs') tied to an 'actividad', so the tool's purpose is clear. It is implicitly distinct from sibling list tools because it targets reworks/bugs for an activity, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by the clear purpose: use this when you need reworks/bugs for a specific activity. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, exclusions, or pointers to alternative sibling tools.

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