List WorkStreams

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real context beyond them: the returned fields, the fact that replies must happen on PeoplePerHour, and the pagination termination signal (cursor null on the last page). No rate limits or auth details, so a 4 rather than 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?

Front-loaded with the resource and scope, then behavior, then pagination; three short sentences with no filler. There is mild redundancy between the title line and the second sentence re-describing WorkStreams, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating what comes back (title, link, unread count, last message with time). Combined with scope, read-only guarantee, and pagination handling, an agent has everything needed to call it 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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point by explaining the round-trip usage ("Pass next_cursor back as cursor") and that the cursor is null on the last page — semantics the schema alone doesn't convey.

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 and resource (WorkStreams) plus scope: "This account's". The parenthetical "conversations with hired freelancers" defines the resource well enough that an agent can tell it apart from list_notifications, list_my_projects, or search_offers without opening another schema.

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?

Explicitly frames the read-only boundary ("It reads, never sends: replying is done on PeoplePerHour") and gives pagination instructions. It does not name a sibling alternative or a when-not condition, which keeps it short of a 5.

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