get_workload

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose two meaningful traits: the lookup is read-only (no mutation risk) and a missing host returns a graceful not-found message rather than an error. It omits permission/auth requirements and rate limits, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and ending with the intended use. Slight redundancy between 'Fetch the inventory record' and 'Looks up the workload via a read-only inventory search' costs it a perfect score.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with an output schema available to describe return shape, the description covers action, scope, safety, and failure behavior. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 0% and the lone 'address' parameter has no schema description, but the description compensates by specifying that the value is an IP address and that the match must be exact. That is the key semantics an agent needs for a single required string argument.

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?

States a specific verb (fetch/look up), resource (inventory record for a single workload) and scope (by exact IP address). It implicitly separates itself from the sibling 'search_inventory' by emphasizing 'a single workload' and 'the exact IP', though it never names an alternative tool outright.

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?

'Use this to inspect one host's annotations, scopes, and attributes' gives clear context for when the tool applies. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, so an agent must infer that bulk queries belong to search_inventory.

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