kintsugi_list_scars

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. The imperative "List" plus the qualifier "verified" implicitly establish a non-mutating read that returns only validated entries, but there is no disclosure of ordering, result limits, pagination, or how much data comes back. It adds some behavioral context but stops short of what an unannotated tool needs.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource first and the filters second, with no filler or repetition. The dense parenthetical earns its space by decoding the jargon a new agent would otherwise stumble on.

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 three-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the definition covers the what and the filter set but omits the return shape, ordering, and result-size behavior. Since there is no output schema to describe what a "Golden Scar" record contains, the description should have sketched that at least briefly.

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, and it does identify all three parameters as filters and clarifies that min_severity is a threshold rather than an exact match. However, it says nothing about tag or language value formats, case sensitivity, or whether filters combine with AND/OR semantics.

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?

"List verified Golden Scars" gives a specific verb plus resource, and the parenthetical decodes the domain term as anti-pattern/fix pairs, so the agent can tell what the resource is. What's missing is any explicit differentiation from siblings such as kintsugi_scan_code, since nothing says whether this returns prior findings or new ones.

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 only enumerates filters, which implies a retrieval use case but never states when to reach for this tool versus kintsugi_scan_code or kintsugi_record_failure. There are no exclusions, no preconditions, and no workflow placement, leaving the agent to infer selection from the filter list alone.

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