human_required_list

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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive; the description adds that items are returned 'newest first' and include a 'by-status tally,' which are behavioral details beyond what annotations provide. It also clarifies the default filter behavior, making the tool's behavior transparent for a read-only list.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, front-loading the main purpose and then adding the most critical parameter detail. Every word earns its keep, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is thin. It does not define `app_id` (a required parameter), the `kind` or `limit` parameters, or explain the structure of the 'by-status tally.' An agent would have to guess at required inputs and response format, making this description incomplete for reliable 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only elaborates on the `status` parameter ('defaults to open; pass "" for all'). Other parameters (`kind`, `limit`, `app_id`) receive no explanation, leaving `kind` especially ambiguous and failing to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 the verb 'List', the resource 'human-required queue items', and adds ordering ('newest first') and output detail ('by-status tally'). It is specific, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the similarly named sibling 'grove_human_required', so it loses one point.

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?

Usage is implied by the description: it lists items that need human attention. The note about `status` defaulting to 'open' and passing '' for all gives a usage hint, but there is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions.

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