describe_work_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it delivers almost nothing beyond the title. At best the wording implies a read-only lookup operation, but there is no mention of whether the integer must be a known code, what happens for invalid input, or what the result looks like.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, which is good, but the bilingual duplication adds length without adding information for an English agent. Conciseness here reflects under-specification rather than tight, informative writing.

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 annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented enum-like integer parameter, the description needed to supply the missing context and does not. An agent cannot reliably call this tool from the definition alone.

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 single required parameter work_state is an integer with 0% schema description coverage, no enum, and no format hints. The description is silent on the parameter entirely, so an agent has no way to know the valid code space or expected 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 states a verb ('describe') and a resource ('work state'), so the broad intent is legible. However, it does not clarify what 'describe' returns (a human-readable mapping of the integer?) nor distinguish this from siblings like get_robot_status or list_work_modes. It borders on restating the tool name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus the sibling state/status tools. No exclusions, no prerequisites, and no indication of when an agent should reach for this over get_robot_status. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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