wb_passes_offices

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only names the subject matter and does not state whether the tool is read-only, returns a list, requires authentication, or has side effects. No behavioral traits 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 very short, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete. The parenthetical '(офисы, пропуска)' largely repeats the English content and adds little value for an agent.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description should at least indicate what the tool returns or how it behaves. It only names the resource and does not clarify whether it lists offices/warehouses, nor does it explain the response format. The zero-parameter nature lowers risk but does not make this complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter meaning because there are no inputs to explain.

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 identifies the resource—offices/warehouses that require a pass—and adds the notion of 'warehouses' beyond the name. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'get', so it does not clearly state what operation the tool performs. It is more than a pure tautology but still vague about the action.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like wb_passes_list and wb_pass_create exist, but the description does not distinguish this tool from them or explain the appropriate context.

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