pws_get_gimmicks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety traits. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond mentioning data fields (requirements, preferred disposition). There is no mention of pagination, default limits, or search behavior, but for a simple read-only tool this is acceptable. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates purpose and usage context, earning every character.

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 tool's low complexity (3 optional parameters, no output schema, strong annotations), the description covers the essential purpose and usage context. It hints at returned data (gimmicks, requirements, disposition) and timing, making it sufficiently complete. It could mention that all parameters are optional, but that is already evident from the schema.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It mentions 'preferred disposition,' which maps to the 'disposition' parameter, but does not clarify 'limit' or 'search.' The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description offers minimal added meaning over the schema, leaving the agent to infer how to use the filters.

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 states the tool's function: 'Browse PWS gimmicks, requirements, and preferred disposition.' The verb 'browse' is specific and the resource (gimmicks) is distinct from sibling tools like pws_get_roster or pws_get_worker. It also hints at specific attributes (requirements, disposition) that make its purpose unmistakable.

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 phrase 'before assigning one to a contract' provides a clear usage context, implying this tool should be used prior to pws_set_contract_gimmick. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the temporal guidance is sufficient to differentiate from other getters and setters.

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