Identify which sponsor-change events are supported for Skilled Worker sponsor duty assessments, so you can verify coverage before submitting a change.
List sponsor-change event types this checker can assess for Skilled Worker sponsor duties.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without description help. The description adds the scoping detail that this list concerns events assessable under Skilled Worker sponsor duties, but no additional behavioral traits such as sorting, filtering, or result size are disclosed.
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 a single sentence that immediately states the action and scope. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or annotations.
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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema available, the description is sufficiently complete. An agent can determine what the tool returns, and the output schema handles return-value details. No critical invocation information is missing.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the schema carries no parameter semantics to clarify. With 100% schema coverage and an empty parameter object, the description does not need to compensate for any missing parameter information. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('sponsor-change event types this checker can assess for Skilled Worker sponsor duties'). This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like assess_change_impact, licensing_source_status, and sponsor_change_checker_info, which involve assessment, status, and general info respectively.
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 implies the tool should be used when an agent needs to know which sponsor-change event types the checker supports. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to an alternative such as assess_change_impact for actually evaluating a specific event. Usage context is implied but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.