Fetch a worker's assignments by ID, resolving deep details via expand or falling back to workerAssignments.
Deep-read worker assignments. Prefers workers/{id} expand; falls back to workerAssignments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| expand | No | ADF expand, default workRelationships.assignments | |
| workerId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description correctly implies a read operation. However, it adds little beyond the annotation: the 'prefers/falls back' detail is about endpoint selection, not user-visible behavior. It doesn't disclose response format, pagination, or error conditions, which would be useful given no output schema exists. It does not contradict the annotation.
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 extremely concise—two short sentences—and avoids fluff. It leads with the primary purpose. However, the brevity comes at the cost of missing critical details, so while it's efficient, it's under-specified. Structurally it's acceptable but not exemplary.
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 tool with no output schema, the description should explain what the returned data looks like, but it does not. It also doesn't address pagination, filtering, or the meaning of 'deep-read'. Given the tool's simplicity (two params, one required), the description leaves significant gaps that an agent would need to infer or test.
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 coverage is only 50% (expand has a description, workerId does not). The description does not mention either parameter, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. For workerId, which is required and undocumented, the description provides zero clarification. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 states the tool reads worker assignments, which is a specific resource, but 'deep-read' is vague jargon that isn't explained. It also references an implementation detail (preferring workers/{id} expand over workerAssignments) without clarifying what the returned data actually contains. While it's distinguishable from siblings by name, the description itself doesn't explicitly differentiate it from hcm_get_worker or hcm_get_work_relationship.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a fallback path, but that's an internal routing detail, not usage context. There are no stated exclusions or conditions for selection, leaving the agent to infer when to call this tool over hcm_get_worker or others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.