aiworkhub_dashboard_needfix_convert_preview

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, it discloses that the preview is cached in memory with a signature, that no task is created, and that no durable store state is mutated — exactly the mutation-risk questions an agent would have. It also surfaces that the returned plan_digest is a prerequisite input for commit, adding workflow-level context annotations cannot express.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the READ-ONLY marker and the core action, then ordering, then the no-mutation guarantee. Slightly dense in the middle sentence (two sibling references plus three inspection targets), but every clause carries operational information.

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 described; the description instead supplies the workflow position, the safety guarantee, and the downstream dependency (plan_digest required to commit). With 100% schema coverage and a matching readOnlyHint, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is absent.

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 coverage is 100%, so both `needfix_id` and the optional `task_plan` overrides are already fully documented in the schema. The description mentions the normalized card, validation requirements, and plan_digest only as outputs to inspect, not as parameter semantics, so it adds no meaning beyond the structured fields — baseline 3 applies.

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 ('preview') and resource ('normalized task card and plan_digest for converting a NeedFix item into a task'), and explicitly names both the commit sibling it precedes and the detail sibling it differs from. An agent can distinguish this from `aiworkhub_dashboard_needfix_convert_commit` and `aiworkhub_dashboard_needfix_detail` without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit ordering ('Call this before aiworkhub_dashboard_needfix_convert_commit') and a routing rule for the alternative ('use aiworkhub_dashboard_needfix_detail to inspect the NeedFix item itself'). The when-to-use condition and the alternative are both named directly.

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