Work order list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses READ-ONLY behavior, pagination limits (cap 256, truncated flag, next_cursor), and explains the validation state meaning, offering comprehensive behavioral transparency.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by necessary details on returned fields and pagination. While dense and efficient, the field list is long and could be more compact, but every sentence 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?

Since there is no output schema, the description enumerates all returned fields, explains validation semantics, and covers pagination and availability. It's fully self-contained for an agent to understand what to expect and how to handle results.

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 schema already describes after_id, and the description adds value by explaining the pagination flow (sorted by id, cap, next_cursor). This goes beyond the schema's bare parameter description, reinforcing usage context.

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'), names the resource ('fort's active manager (work) orders'), and enumerates the returned fields (id, job type, output tokens, amounts, etc.), making its purpose unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like work_details or jobs_and_labor.

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 explicitly states this is the readback sensor for work_order_create/_cancel and that it's always available, giving clear when-to-use context. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternative tools, but the purpose is specific enough that use cases are well implied.

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