List Specialist Contexts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds semantic context that this is a catalog (not a hiring roster) and details the content of the listing, which is valuable beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core function and content, and no filler. The exclusionary note ('not a hiring roster') earns its place by preventing misinterpretation.

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 simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter and clear sibling context, the description sufficiently conveys what the tool returns and when to use it. It does not explain the response format, but the response_format parameter covers that, and no output schema is required for this simplicity.

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 only parameter (response_format) has a full description and enum in the schema, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters; the schema carries the burden, and the baseline of 3 applies.

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 all Workforce specialist contexts') and enumerates the exact fields returned (short flags, full ids, aliases, ownership). It also distinguishes itself from being a hiring roster, clearly separating it from sibling tools that handle delegation or consultation.

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?

Explicitly instructs to 'Use before workforce_as if unsure which specialist context fits the work', giving a clear when-to-use directive. It also states what the tool is not ('not a hiring roster'), providing an exclusion that helps rule out misuse.

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