slots

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful trait — only *filled* roles are returned, implying empty slots are omitted — and it sketches the return shape (roles plus the claiming node). It stops short of covering permissions, pagination, or the empty-initiative case.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler that front-loads the action and the subject. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description conveys both the operation and the conceptual return shape, which is enough to call it correctly. It could still clarify how 'roles' and 'nodes' relate or what an empty result means, but the essentials are present.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the 'initiative' argument. The description's 'of an initiative' phrasing aligns with it but adds no format, scope, or identifier details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 for a well-covered single parameter.

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 pairs a specific verb ('List') with a concrete resource ('filled roles of an initiative') and states the payload ('which node holds each'). It clearly distinguishes a read/list operation from the mutation-oriented siblings 'slot' and 'unslot', though it never names them explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this versus related tools like 'slot', 'unslot', 'initiatives', or 'overview'. The read-only nature is only implied by the verb 'List', and no conditions or exclusions are given.

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