Technician workload

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds the substantive behavior an agent needs — sort order (busiest first), the exact overloaded threshold, per-technician field contents, and that unassigned tickets appear in a separate urgency-labeled section. It also discloses the core computation (1.5x team average), which cannot be inferred from any structured field.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and use cases, then the return contents, then sort order and the unassigned case — a logical progression with no filler. The quoted example phrasings and the parenthetical threshold are dense but each earns its place; a slightly tighter sentence structure would push this to a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden well, enumerating each per-technician field and the separate unassigned section. The remaining gap is scope: it doesn't say whether tickets are all-time or current open state only, nor how it relates to the sibling triage/queue tools, which matters for an openWorld data source.

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 takes no parameters, so the schema carries no semantics to supplement and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description is needed to explain inputs, and it correctly avoids describing nonexistent ones.

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?

States a specific resource and metric set: open tickets per technician, including counts waiting on IT, critical counts, oldest ticket, and an overloaded flag. The definition of the overloaded flag (3+ open and 1.5x team average) and the handling of unassigned tickets make the scope unambiguous and distinguishable from a plain ticket list.

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?

Names concrete scenarios that select it — "who's overloaded?", "who should take this?", team check-in — which gives an agent a clear trigger. It stops short of naming siblings (triage_queue, open_alerts) or stating when not to use it, so routing versus alternatives is inferred rather than explicit.

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