get_worklist

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful non-obvious behavior: the ranking formula, owner routing, and the note attached to non-ratified codes. However, it does not explicitly state read-only semantics, pagination, or limits, though these are less critical for a get-type tool.

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 compact and front-loaded with the essential ranking and routing facts. The middle sentence 'This is the tail, and the tail is the product' is stylistic rather than actionable, but it does not substantially bloat the definition.

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 format details are covered elsewhere. Still, run_id is left undocumented, 'owner' is unexplained, and there is no mention of pagination or usage prerequisites. This is adequate for a high-level read tool but leaves operational gaps.

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?

The schema has one required run_id parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions run_id, how to obtain it, or what it refers to. The parameter name is mildly self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value and does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 identifies the resource as 'the exception queue' and specifies its defining characteristics: ranked by cash impact x age and routed to an owner. This is specific enough to separate it from the per-exception sibling tools, though it relies on the tool name to supply the verb.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as explain_exception or dispose_exception. The phrase 'the tail is the product' conveys philosophy but not actionable selection criteria or exclusions.

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