list_rewrites

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It never confirms this is a read-only operation or describes pagination, ordering, or result limits; the one behavioral hint ('with their diffs') largely restates what the existing output schema already covers.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the tool is simple with one optional parameter. However, the description omits the status-filter semantics and any usage context, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent deciding between this and its many sibling tools.

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 single 'status' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and does not — it never mentions that results can be filtered by status or what those enum values mean. The enum values (proposed/applied/reverted/discarded) are only self-explanatory because they mirror sibling tool names, not because the definition explains them.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List rewrites') and even indicates the content of the listing ('with their diffs'). It is clear what the tool does, but it does nothing to distinguish it from sibling listing/inspection tools like list_claims or audit_status.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling rewrite tools (propose_rewrite, apply_rewrite, revert_rewrite, discard_rewrite) or the other listing tools. Nothing is said about filtering, ordering, or prerequisites, so the agent must infer all usage context.

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