iris_works_guide

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only, informational tool covering screens and a sign-in link, but never states whether it returns text or structured data, whether it has side effects, or whether the sign-in link is authoritative/expiring. Useful but incomplete for an unannotated tool.

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?

Two short sentences with the call-first directive front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical inventory of screens/domains is slightly awkward as a fragment but does real scoping work.

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 zero-required-parameter orientation tool with no output schema and simple inputs, the definition is nearly sufficient: it says what it covers and when to call it. The only meaningful gap is what the response looks like and how it relates to the sibling action tools.

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% and the single optional 'task' parameter is already described as 'what you want done in Iris Works, in your words.' The description adds no meaning beyond that — it never mentions the task parameter or how phrasing it changes the guidance returned.

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 names the tool's role (a guide to how to work in Iris Works) and scopes it with concrete examples — reviewing clients, scheduling sessions, preparing invoices — plus what it exposes (screens and the sign-in link). This distinguishes it from the sibling UI primitives (click, type, read) that do the actual interaction, though it never says so explicitly.

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?

'Call this first' is an explicit sequencing instruction that tells an agent when to invoke it relative to the other iris_works tools. There is no explicit when-not condition, but for an entry-point orientation tool the ordering rule carries most of the guidance needed.

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