pws_analyze_worker_usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds some behavioral context by listing the analysis dimensions, but doesn't explain side effects, output shape, or how the analysis behaves over time. This is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction, but the added transparency is modest.

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 concise sentence with no redundancy, and the key verb 'Analyze' is front-loaded. It could be slightly expanded with parameter context, but as written it's clean and efficient.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns, but it only lists analysis topics without describing result format or how 'days' shapes the output. It leaves the agent to infer behavior. Given annotations cover safety but not return semantics, the description is incomplete for a tool with one meaningful parameter.

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 only parameter, 'days', is not mentioned in the description, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description therefore doesn't explain that the analysis window defaults to 90 days and is restricted to 7–730. Since the description must compensate for low schema coverage but doesn't, parameter semantics are under-specified despite the parameter name being somewhat intuitive.

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 names a specific resource ('worker usage') and an explicit verb ('Analyze'), and enumerates the data examined: roster appearances, matches, angles, last-booked dates, and rotation flags. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like pws_get_roster or pws_get_worker, which are related but presumably return raw data rather than analysis.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of what scenarios call for analysis rather than simple retrieval. The agent can infer some intent from the name and description, but the description doesn't help with routing among many similar pws_* tools.

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