worklist

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. The description adds useful behavioral context: the tool returns the entire risk ranking with a specific ordering rule and a queue structure. This is beyond what annotations convey, and there is no contradiction.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the sibling reference is efficiently included in the second sentence. Every word contributes value.

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 read-only, idempotent tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, ordering, and usage context. It does not describe return format or limits, but given the annotations and schema, there are no critical gaps for an agent to call it correctly.

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 100%, with both top and repo parameters fully described. The description itself does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies. It doesn't repeat or enhance parameter details.

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 what the tool does: it provides the run's whole risk ranking, with a specific ordering (ccn times recency-weighted churn). It explicitly differentiates from the sibling next_item (

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 description tells the agent to use it for surveying the repo and explicitly contrasts it with next_item. This gives concrete guidance on when to select this tool over at least one sibling, and the context (whole ranking vs one packet) is clear. It doesn't address all other siblings, but the primary alternative is covered.

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