get_work_targets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context about the durable nature of the registry and the meaningful categories of output (current work, queued, lifecycle), beyond what the annotation hints provide.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary action and resource, followed by one sentence that summarizes output content. Every sentence contributes meaningwith no repetition or filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description gives sufficient context: it names the resource and describes the general content of the result. It does not detail exact result fields, but the high-level output categories ('what's queued, lifecycle state') are enough to invoke 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?

The tool accepts zero parameters, so there is no parameter behavior for the description to clarify. The schema fully covers the empty parameter surface, and the description correctly implies a no-input read operation.

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?

Description states a clear verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('durable work target registry'), then elaborates what it reveals: daemon's current work, queued items, and lifecycle state. This gives a focused, non-tautological purpose and differsnciates it from generic status or activity tools.

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 gives clear context: use this when you need to inspect the durable work target registry and see what the daemon is working on, queued, and lifecycle state. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or provide when-not conditions, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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