pws_get_stables

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying that the tool returns both stables and their members, and that stableId scopes the result. 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 redundancy. It states the action, resource, and optional filter in an efficient manner, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description provides enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly. It could mention that omitting stableId returns all stables, but this is reasonably implied by 'List player-company stables' and the optional filter.

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 provides only a parameter name and type (stableId integer, minimum 1) with no description, leaving 0% schema coverage. The description compensates by clarifying that stableId is an optional filter, which is the key semantic needed to use the parameter correctly.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('player-company stables and their members'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like pws_get_roster (likely worker roster) and pws_get_worker. It also notes an optional filter by stable ID, further clarifying scope.

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 'or filter by stable ID' gives a clear usage context for the parameter, and the resource focus on stables implies when this tool is relevant versus worker-specific tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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