Autohold Requests

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so no contradiction. Description adds value by explaining what information is shown (project/job/change, node count, expiration) beyond what annotations provide, confirming it is a safe read operation.

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?

Description is brief and to-the-point: two sentences plus an args section. Purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 the tool is a simple list with one optional parameter and a presumed output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains what the tool returns (project/job/change, count, expiration). Could be enhanced by noting that it only shows active requests.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description documents the 'tenant' parameter with its meaning and default behavior ('uses default if empty'). This compensates for the schema gap.

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?

Description clearly states 'List autohold requests' and explains they are nodes held after failure for debugging. The verb and resource are specific and distinct from sibling tools, which do not include similar autohold functionality.

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?

Description implies usage for debugging failures by stating 'nodes held after failure'. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context of active autoholds is clear. Adequate for most agents.

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