List tracked fixes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that the tool returns 'status and the scope of any automated verification proof', which is output-oriented rather than behavioral. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, side effects) are disclosed beyond annotations.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose and includes output details. The second mentions the required feature gate. No extraneous information; front-loaded with the action verb.

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 the tool has a single parameter, no enums, and an output schema exists, the description adequately covers the purpose and output content. It mentions the required Pro+ feature. It might miss details like pagination or ordering, but these are likely covered by the output schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a list tool.

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?

The schema describes the single required parameter 'siteHost' as 'The registered site's normalized host'. The description adds value by specifying 'as list_sites reports it', which clarifies the expected format and ties it to another tool's output. This reduces ambiguity beyond the schema alone.

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 'Lists tracked remediation items for a registered site', specifying the verb (list), resource (remediation items), and scope (per site). It distinguishes itself from siblings like verify_fix by focusing on listing, not verification. The inclusion of output details (status, verification proof scope) adds clarity.

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 usage for listing fixes but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over related siblings (e.g., get_fix_verification, verify_fix). The mention of 'Pro+ (REMEDIATION_TRACKING)' hints at subscription requirements but does not provide when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria.

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