Autohold Requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: project filter uses a project-scoped API endpoint for server-side filtering, job filter is client-side, and tenant defaults from env. No contradictions.

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?

Front-loaded with a clear purpose and use case, followed by a structured Args list. Every sentence earns its place; no redundant or extraneous content.

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 simple read-only list tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and key behavioral differences (server vs client filtering). The optional parameters and output schema are already structured, so no further explanation 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 has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section fully compensates by explaining each parameter: tenant (default from env), project (server-side substring match via project-scoped endpoint), job (client-side substring match). This is exactly what the schema lacks.

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+resource ('List autohold requests') and explains what autoholds are ('nodes held after failure for debugging'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_autohold (single item) and autohold_create/delete (mutations).

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?

Provides clear usage context: 'Check when jobs are stuck waiting for nodes or to find your autohold.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the purpose and parameters imply when listing is appropriate versus other operations.

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