bw_list_remodeling_requests

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 explicitly states 'Read-only,' explains how remodeling rules arise, and notes that this tool family does not create rules. This meaningfully clarifies side effects and interpretation of returned remodeling_rule IDs, though it does not cover behaviors like ordering, errors, or authentication.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and then adds a concise but detailed explanation of remodeling semantics. Each paragraph earns its place; the text is somewhat dense and long, but it avoids filler and is structured from the list action to the conceptual background that an agent needs to interpret results.

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?

Combined with the high schema coverage, the description gives enough to call and interpret the tool: it names output fields, explains what a remodeling_rule is, and clarifies key edge cases like the 'empty column' scenario. There is no output schema, so a fuller example of the returned request object would improve completeness, but the current text is not materially incomplete.

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 input schema covers 100% of the three parameters with clear descriptions (top cap, status codes, info_provider filter). The description adds useful context around what 'status' refers to conceptually and how remodeling_rule IDs are created, but it does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List remodeling requests from the remodeling monitor.' It also names the meaningful output fields ('decoded status, last run and creator') and frames remodeling as a distinct operation from normal request listing, clearly distinguishing this sibling from bw_list_requests and bw_get_remodeling_request.

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?

It gives clear context for when remodeling concepts matter, including when a remodeling rule is automatically created vs. when appending a field does not trigger one. It does not explicitly name alternative list-based siblings or state 'use this instead of bw_list_requests,' but the remodeling-monitor framing implies the intended use strongly enough.

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