read_my_work

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

Annotations already indicate a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: the default open-state filter, the grouping of results by state, and the scoping to the token owner's assignments.

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 dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core subject, then adds the default behavior and output characteristic efficiently.

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 read-only tool whose annotations cover safety and whose schema covers type and limit, the description is nearly complete. The remaining gaps are the exact semantics of state/includeClosed and the response shape beyond counts per state.

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 documents type and limit, but state and includeClosed have no descriptions. The phrase 'open ones by default' partially clarifies includeClosed semantics and 'counts per state' relates to the state parameter, but the description does not fully compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 clearly says the tool returns cards assigned to the current token owner, with open cards as the default and counts per state. This distinguishes it from generic sibling tools like read_card or read_search, though it lacks an explicit action verb like 'list' or 'read'.

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 the tool should be used when you need the current user's assigned cards, especially open ones grouped by state. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as read_card or read_search.

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