human_required_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly declares 'Read-only' and explains the ordering and tally behavior. This is sufficient for a simple list operation, though it does not detail auth requirements or potential edge cases.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and resource. Every word is useful: 'newest first', 'by-status tally', 'status defaults...', 'Read-only'. No fluff or repetition.

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 4-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavior: what it lists, ordering, tally, status filtering, and read-only nature. It does not mention possible status values or the meaning of 'kind', but the core is complete enough for a simple list operation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for 'status' (defaults to 'open', pass '' for all) but does not explain 'kind', 'limit', or 'app_id' beyond what the schema already shows. Partial compensation only.

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 verb ('List'), the resource ('human-required queue items'), and specific behavior ('newest first', 'with a by-status tally'). This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like store_list or commitment_list, and from related mutation tools (human_required_enqueue/resolve).

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?

The description provides clear context: it is a read-only operation for listing human-required queue items, and explains the status parameter default behavior. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous. The 'Read-only' note helps guide appropriate use.

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