List Work Order Contracts

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral context about pagination (page/per_page), required project_id, and the endpoint, but these are expected for a list operation. No contradiction with 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?

The description is brief yet comprehensive, covering purpose, usage, and pagination in a few sentences. Every sentence serves a clear purpose without redundancy.

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 list tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return type (paginated JSON array of Commitments) and key parameters. It lacks details on error handling or response structure, but for a list operation, this is sufficient.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description highlights the required parameter (project_id) and pagination parameters (page, per_page), but does not elaborate on filtering parameters beyond referencing external documentation, providing marginal additional value.

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 states the action ('Return a list of all Work Order Contracts of a specified Project') and specifies the resource. It further details use cases like enumerating Commitments, pagination, finding IDs, and filtering, making it specific and distinct from other tools.

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 clear guidance on when to use the tool (enumerate Commitments, paginated overview, find IDs, filter). However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools like list_purchase_order_contracts or list_commitment_contracts, leaving some ambiguity.

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