Jobs and labor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers robust behavioral disclosure. It details that cancellations count occurrences rather than collapsed report rows, mentions the retained buffer window, notes the exclusion of children/babies from the labor pool, and states the exact error response for a missing fort. This is exceptionally transparent.

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 information-dense but well-organized: a colon-led main clause introduces the workforce data, and a separate sentence covers cancellations and chronicle. Each sentence contributes unique value without redundancy, though the second sentence is quite long and packed with 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?

In the absence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return categories: workforce utilization, idle percentage, ranked job breakdown, and cancellations (with aggregation and time-window context). It also covers the error case, making the tool's behavior fully understandable without external documentation.

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 no parameters, so the schema is empty and there is nothing to explain. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for zero-parameter tools, and the description appropriately introduces no parameter-related claims.

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 identifies the tool's main function: providing workforce utilization statistics (busy vs. idle), idle percentage, a ranked breakdown of jobs, and cancellation aggregations. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'chronicle' by contrasting aggregation behavior, so its purpose is unambiguous and differentiated.

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 gives interpretive guidance for high idle ('unassigned labor or nothing queued') and draws a comparison with chronicle to help choose between them. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like work_order_list or provide a broader when-to-use/not-use framework, so it falls short of a full 5.

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