work_get

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description's 'Read' is consistent with these—no contradiction. The phrase 'and its evidence' adds modest context about what is returned, though return format and any access requirements are undisclosed. With annotations carrying the safety profile, the description adds limited value beyond them.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose with no filler. It is appropriately brief for a simple one-parameter read tool, though it leans toward under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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 low-complexity tool (one parameter, no output schema, read-only annotations covering safety), the description conveys the essential purpose. The main gap is the unexplained workId parameter and what 'evidence' encompasses, but the tool's simplicity keeps the missing context minor.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining workId, but it says nothing about what the parameter means, its format, or how to obtain a valid value. The description does not compensate for the schema's silence on the single required 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 states a specific verb ('Read') and a resource ('durable work record and its evidence'), which distinguishes it from siblings like work_list and work_create. 'Durable' and 'and its evidence' add useful specificity, though the relationship to evidence_list is not elaborated.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as work_list, work_verify, or evidence_list. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or the situations where a sibling would be preferable.

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