find_workarounds

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only implies a read operation. It says nothing about run scoping, permissions, pagination, what 'recurring' means operationally, or whether the result set is bounded by run_id. The 'all'/'recurring' framing is the only behavioral hint.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the core scope front-loaded and no filler. It is well-sized, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a tool in a 48-sibling family.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description omits the required run_id contract, pagination/limit behavior, and any routing relative to the dense sibling set. For a required-parameter tool in this family, more context is needed.

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% for both parameters: run_id is required but unexplained (which run? how obtained?), and limit's default of 20 is not discussed. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names, leaving the agent to infer the run_id contract on its own.

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 (find) and a specific resource (recurring workarounds and informal fixes), which an agent can distinguish from sibling 'find_*' tools like find_needs or find_signals. However, it offers no explicit contrast with those siblings, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusion conditions, and no reference to any of the many sibling find_*/search_* tools. The agent must guess how this fits into the research pipeline relative to find_needs, find_signals, or find_switching_signals.

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