scf_get_work_queue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context by specifying that it aggregates across all organizations and includes prioritized items. However, it does not disclose potential edge behaviors such as empty-queue handling, ordering guarantees, pagination, or whether results are real-time or cached. With annotations covering safety, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then lists the content types and scope. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no redundancy with the title or schema.

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 is sufficiently complete. It specifies what the tool returns (pending tasks, assignments, action items) and the aggregation scope (all organizations). Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call it is missing.

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 input schema has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, making parameter documentation unnecessary. Per guidelines, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline of 4, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics. It correctly avoids inventing any.

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 a specific action ('Get') on a well-defined resource ('the caller's work queue') and enumerates its contents: prioritized pending tasks, assignments, and action items. It also clarifies the scope as 'across every organization they belong to,' which distinguishes it from other list-style sibling 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 implies usage by naming the resource and contents, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. No sibling is referenced as an alternative. The reader can infer it is for viewing one's own aggregated work queue, but explicit guidance is absent.

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