Autohold Requests

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds conceptual meaning ('nodes held after failure for debugging') but no additional behavioral details such as pagination, ordering, or scope. No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely concise: a one-sentence definition followed by a single parameter line. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no filler.

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 operation with a rich annotation set and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and sole parameter. It does not mention pagination or result limits, but these are not essential given the openWorldHint and output schema.

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 schema has one parameter 'tenant' with a default empty string and no description. The description adds 'Tenant (default from env)', clarifying that the default is drawn from the environment, which gives practical meaning beyond the schema's empty string. This is useful for the sole parameter.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'autohold requests', and clarifies what autoholds are ('nodes held after failure for debugging'). This distinguishes it from the sibling get_autohold, which likely targets a single autohold.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_autohold. The phrase 'for debugging' hints at general context but does not state when to prefer this over other list or get tools, nor when not to use it.

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