pbi_list_repairable_errors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It details the output structure (error code, severity, auto-fixable flag, repair instruction), which is informative for a read-only list operation. No side effects or auth needs are mentioned, but none are expected.

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 three concise sentences. The first states the purpose, the second (line continuation) links to repair loop, and the final bulleted list details the return structure. No fluff, front-loaded.

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 zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description provides extra context about the entry fields. It is complete for a simple list tool, though it does not mention any prerequisites or availability conditions.

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?

There are no parameters; schema coverage is 100% by default. Per guidelines, zero parameters merits a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter info since none exist.

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 clearly states the action ('return') and the resource ('repairable-error vocabulary'). It explicitly ties the tool to 'pbi_repair_loop', distinguishing it from other list tools among the many siblings.

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?

While the description implies use with 'pbi_repair_loop', it does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. The context is clear, but lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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