list_rhr_requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only the endpoint codename '(rhr/list)' and the filterability, with no return shape, pagination, or default-behavior detail, so it adds light context rather than meaningful transparency.

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 front-loaded sentence with the action first, then the filter scope, then the endpoint hint. Nothing is wasted and no filler is present.

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?

For a parameterless-required, read-only list tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies enough to call it correctly. The absence of return-format detail is acceptable since there is no output schema, though it leaves the agent slightly under-informed about result shape.

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 100% and both parameters (status, location) are documented in the schema, including the 'NL' example. The description adds nothing beyond echoing what the schema already defines, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('List Remote Hands requests') and describes the filtering axes ('location and status'), which clearly distinguishes it from the create/discard/comment RHR siblings. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling to route between, so it stops short of a 5.

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 mention of filtering by location and status implies the retrieval context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when not to use it versus get_single_request-style siblings, and no prerequisites. Usage is only inferable.

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