aiworkhub_dashboard_needfix_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'READ-ONLY' and 'reads the SQLite store without mutating state' largely restate that. It does add that listing is 'bounded' and pageable, but the actual bounds (limit clamped to 1..200, default excludes archived) live in the schema, so behavioral value beyond structured fields is modest.

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 short sentences with the read-only constraint and the verb front-loaded, then routing guidance. Slightly redundant between 'READ-ONLY' and 'without mutating state', which repeats the same point twice.

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, and annotations cover the safety profile. Between the description's routing and the schema's fully documented parameters, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (kind, status, severity, include_archived, limit, offset) is already documented with defaults and clamps. The description only echoes the filter names at a high level and adds no syntax, valid-value, or interaction detail, so 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 and resource ('list ... NeedFix inbox items') plus scope ('bounded', filterable), and explicitly distinguishes itself from aiworkhub_dashboard_needfix_detail and aiworkhub_dashboard_roadmap_list. An agent can tell exactly what this returns versus its nearest siblings.

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 routing: use this to browse/page summaries, use needfix_detail to fetch full description/scope/provenance/audit events for one item, use roadmap_list for Roadmap items. The when-to-use-this vs when-to-use-alternative decision is fully spelled out.

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