file_work_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses non-obvious branching behavior: the tool never guesses, and returns either a draft (with the one-line confirmation and BOTH price lines) or a one-tap question. But terminology like "context packet," "node registry," and "price lines" is opaque, and it never states side effects — whether filing persists anything, is idempotent, or merely compiles a preview.

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?

Only two sentences and the routing rule is front-loaded, so nothing is buried. But the prose is dense with undefined internal jargon, which costs a reader more than the length suggests; a short gloss of "context packet" or "price lines" would have earned its space.

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 mutation-flavored tool with zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and six parameters, the description covers the branching and the intent fields but omits side effects, permissions, and the meaning of most inputs. Adequate to attempt a call correctly, not adequate to predict its consequences.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does well for the free-form `intent` object, naming spec_sentence (≤ 25 words), goal, acceptance (≥ 1 machine-checkable check) and estimate {build_verify, generate_test}. The other five parameters — request, params, region, selection, conversation — receive no explanation at all, leaving the required `request` and the ambiguous `selection`/`params` undocumented.

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 verb and resource ("File a work order") plus the inputs it consumes ("terse request plus the context packet") and the two possible outputs (a draft or a one-tap question). It never differentiates itself from siblings like confirm_work_order, which is a natural next step, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives one explicit routing rule — when two referent sets are plausible, answer with answer_question rather than re-filing — which is genuine when/when-not guidance. However it says nothing about when to call this versus confirm_work_order or propose_plan_intention, and prerequisites (context packet must exist?) are only implied.

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