company_work_items

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

The description explicitly mentions 'Read-only', which is a behavioral trait and helps set expectations. However, it does not disclose any other behaviors such as response format details (beyond JSON), pagination, or error handling, so transparency is limited.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by 'JSON' and 'Read-only'. It is concise without unnecessary verbosity, though the odd introductory phrase slightly detracts from clarity.

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?

The description lacks essential context: it does not clarify the structure of the output (beyond JSON), the meaning of the parameters, or how the tool fits into the broader workflow. Given the complexity of the input schema, this incompleteness is significant.

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 schema includes three parameters ('now', 'project_id', 'bundle_json') with no descriptions, and the tool description does not explain any of them. The description focuses on the output rather than input semantics, providing no help in understanding parameter purpose or constraints.

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 that the tool returns the cadence tick plan (automatic actions and work items) from persisted states, which is reasonably clear. However, the opening phrase 'What a company needs now' is vague and adds little concrete meaning, preventing a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not compare with sibling tools or state any specific use cases, leaving the agent without direction for selection.

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