air_list_open_factsLists the deduplicated open EU AI Act fact worklist for an assessment, with each missing fact once and criteria it unblocks. Requires assessments:read.
List the deduplicated open EU AI Act fact worklist for an assessment (each missing fact once, with criteria it unblocks). Requires assessments:read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| assessmentPid | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are deduplicated and each fact appears once with unblocked criteria, which is useful behavior. But it doesn't explain pagination, ordering, or what happens when all facts are answered.
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?
Single sentence that is front-loaded with the resource, followed by scope clarification and permission requirement. No wasted 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?
Covers purpose, scope, return composition (deduplicated facts with criteria), and permission requirement. A tool with one simple parameter and no output schema is adequately described, though parameter semantics and usage relative to siblings could be stronger.
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 does nothing to explain the single parameter assessmentPid. An agent must infer that it identifies the assessment, but the format (UUID, PID string) and constraints are not clarified. With one undocumented required parameter, the description fails to compensate.
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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (deduplicated open EU AI Act fact worklist for an assessment), and defines the scope precisely with 'each missing fact once, with criteria it unblocks'. Distinguishable from siblings like air_get_assessment_summary and air_list_assessments.
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 this is used to find what facts are still needed for an assessment, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus air_get_assessment or air_get_assessment_summary, nor does it mention prerequisites beyond the permission.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.