List repairs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the shape of the returned issues; it says nothing about ordering, counts, or default filtering behavior.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the source of the data and then the returned fields. No filler, though a short clause on the ignored filter would have earned its place.

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 annotations carrying the safety profile and no output schema, naming the returned fields is largely sufficient. The remaining gap is the undocumented default of include_ignored, which is minor but real.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single parameter, so the schema alone does not explain include_ignored. The description's phrase 'or has been ignored' hints that ignored issues exist, but it never states that the flag controls whether they are included or that it defaults to false.

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 ('List') and resource ('issues shown under Settings, Repairs') and enumerates the fields returned (severity, domain, fixability, ignored status). An agent can tell what it produces, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the similarly-scoped sibling find_problems.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when not to use it, and no pointer to alternatives such as find_problems or get_system_health. The 'Settings, Repairs' phrase implies the context, but the agent must infer when this is the right tool.

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