list_work_orders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does state that data is live and lists the returned fields, which is useful. However, it does not mention pagination, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the list is filtered or sorted.

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 that front-loads the action and resource, then follows with a compact list of return fields. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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 parameterless, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers source, scope, and the main returned fields. It could have mentioned pagination or the absence of filtering, but given the low complexity, this is nearly complete.

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 has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description adds useful context about the output fields instead.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), a clear object ('all maintenance work orders'), and a source system ('Rentvine'), then names the returned fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_owners or list_inspections, though it does not explicitly contrast it with list_work_order_attachments.

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 usage context is implied: use this when you need all maintenance work orders and their key details. However, the description does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it differs from alternatives such as update_work_order or list_work_order_attachments.

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