worklist

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It reveals important behavioral traits: results are heuristic ('probably', 'likely'), each list is truncated to max_items, and 'summary' contains the real totals. This goes beyond what the schema shows and helps set expectations about incomplete lists.

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 dense sentences with no filler: the first enumerates the problem categories, the second clarifies truncation and summary behavior. The phrasing is slightly run-on, but every clause earns its place.

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?

Given a single optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential usage context, truncation semantics, and the heuristic nature of the result. It does not describe the output structure in detail, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need for that.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description explicitly explains max_items as the cap on each list, which is the parameter's core meaning. It could also mention that the default of 40 applies per list, but the current text is sufficient for a single optional parameter.

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 identifies a specific resource ('this graph') and a specific output (a list of probable source-level problems: duplicates, hubs, islands, unlinked nodes). The verb is implied rather than explicit, and it does not directly contrast with siblings, but the categories are distinctive enough that an agent can tell it apart from get_graph or graph_stats.

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 intended use is implied: call this tool to see what likely needs fixing in the graph. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use it instead of siblings like graph_stats, search, or get_node, and no exclusions are given.

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