listFixItems

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

Annotations already mark it readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds that the fix list is hand-authored and not regenerated, which is a valuable behavioral nuance beyond the annotations. It also discloses that each item's ID is returned for use with deleteFixItem, providing operational context.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The core action and the key caveat (hand-authored, not regenerated) are front-loaded, and the reference to deleteFixItem is appended naturally. Every sentence earns 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?

With one required parameter, an output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the description provides all essential context: what the data is, how it is created, and how the returned IDs are used. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 only parameter auditId is documented in the schema with a brief description ('Audit ID.'). The tool description only implies it is the audit identifier, adding no new meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 it 'reads the fix list saved against an audit' — a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling deleteFixItem by noting it returns each item's ID for that tool, and clarifies that the list is hand-authored and not regenerated, setting it apart from audit-result tools.

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 implies usage for viewing proposed metadata changes and notes, and contrasts with regenerated audit data ('not regenerated by re-running an audit'). It references deleteFixItem as the deletion counterpart, but does not explicitly name other alternative tools for audit outputs, so guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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