aiworkhub_dashboard_needfix_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description nonetheless adds useful detail by stating it validates needfix_id format and reads without mutating state, and that event history is bounded. It is partly redundant with the annotation ("READ-ONLY") but adds enforcement and scoping context beyond the structured fields.

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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with the read-only guarantee and the return shape, then the routing advice. The "READ-ONLY" prefix and "reads without mutating state" slightly duplicate each other and the annotation, but the text is otherwise tight.

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 fields need not be enumerated; the description still signals the payload (detail fields + audit events). For a 2-param read tool with annotations and an output schema, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 parameters (needfix_id format and event_limit clamping) are already documented in the schema. The description only adds that event history is bounded, which is marginal over what the schema states. 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+resource: return one NeedFix item with full detail fields plus bounded audit event history. It names the sibling used for browsing (needfix_list) and the sibling used for conversion preview, so an agent can distinguish it 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?

Explicitly says when to use it (inspect a single item's description, scope, evidence, lifecycle events) and names the two alternatives with the condition that selects each. Nothing is left to inference.

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