appcrane_list_requests

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains return fields (id, message, app_slug, submitter, bucket), bucket meanings, and that omitting slug shows all accessible apps. It lacks details on ordering or pagination but covers essential behavioral context.

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 concise with three sentences: one for purpose and use cases, one for return fields, and one for bucket explanations and a tip. No extraneous information; every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema and 3 parameters, the description covers purpose, usage context, return fields, bucket definitions, and a filtering tip. It omits sorting and error handling but is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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 67% (slug and bucket described, limit not). The description adds value by reiterating the bucket filter tip and confirming slug omission behavior, but does not elaborate on the limit parameter beyond what the schema provides (default, min, max). Baseline 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 explicitly states the tool lists enhancement requests from the AppCrane intake form and provides concrete use cases like 'what should I work on?' and 'what's queued for X?'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling listing tools (e.g., list_apps, list_releases) by focusing on requests with bucket categorization.

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 tells when to use the tool (user asks about work items, picking up tickets) and suggests filtering by bucket='triage' to find unclaimed work. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use alternatives, but the sibling context and specific bucket guidance provide adequate direction.

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