get_dirty_toolpaths

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The phrase 'preserve unknown state' adds little beyond those annotations, and no extra behavioral details like performance or side effects are 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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the main action and condition. The 'preserve unknown state' phrase is slightly redundant, but overall the description is efficient and to the point.

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?

The tool has an output schema that presumably covers return format, but the description lacks usage guidance and parameter semantics. It does not explain what 'dirty state' means or how behavior changes when operationIds is omitted, leaving the agent with significant gaps in understanding.

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% and the description never mentions the operationIds parameter. Since the schema only provides the name and type, the description does not clarify how the parameter filters results or its optional semantics, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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 clearly states the tool lists operations whose mapped dirty state requires regeneration, which is a specific verb-resource combination with a filtering condition. It distinguishes from generic list_operations by the dirty-state criterion, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_toolpath_status.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_operations or get_toolpath_status. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when this is the right choice.

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