list_labor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full disclosure burden. While 'List' implies read-only, the description doesn't confirm idempotency, pagination behavior, default sorting, error handling, or rate limits. The mention of 'technician work' adds some behavioral context, but safety/side-effect disclosure is absent.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, while the second provides use-case context. Appropriate length for the complexity, though could benefit from explicit filtering behavior mention given the optional parameters.

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?

Given the simple 4-parameter schema with 100% coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. However, lacking annotations and behavioral details (pagination, result set size), it falls short of fully preparing an agent for invocation nuances.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by establishing that labor relates to 'technician work on orders,' which helps contextualize the orderId parameter. However, it doesn't explain parameter relationships (e.g., that orderId and locationId can be combined) or validation rules beyond the schema.

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 specific action (List) and resource (labor line items) from Shopmonkey. The second sentence adds domain context distinguishing 'technician work' from other list operations like services or timeclock entries. However, it doesn't explicitly clarify the distinction between labor line items vs service line items vs timeclock entries.

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?

Provides implied usage context ('tracking technician work on orders') suggesting when to use it, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over list_services, list_timeclock, or get_order. No prerequisites or alternative recommendations are mentioned.

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