Work details

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: READ-ONLY, availability (not behind actuator gate), member list cap at 200, member_count always full, members_truncated flag, and cursor-based pagination with members_cursor. This is comprehensive.

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 moderately long but every sentence earns its place, explaining the output fields, truncation, and pagination. It is front-loaded with the core purpose but could perhaps be tightened without losing critical information.

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?

With no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return facts (name, mode, labor tokens, assigned citizens), the pagination behavior, and the parameter semantics. It is self-sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, but the description adds significant meaning: the detail parameter is exact-match and returns only that detail, with example 'Miners'; members_after is a cursor tied to members_cursor from a truncated response. This elevates beyond the schema.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('fort’s work details' / labor-management groups), and enumerates the output fields. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like jobs_and_labor, so it misses the top score.

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 usage context: it's READ-ONLY, always available, and serves as the readback sensor for assign_work_detail. It explains optional narrowing parameters and pagination, but does not explicitly say when to choose this over alternatives.

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