atcWorklists

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. It states 'retrieves,' implying a read-only operation, but does not specify whether this is safe, if it requires authentication, what the output format is, or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's action without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the complexity of ATC-related tools and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'ATC worklists' entail, the return format, or behavioral traits like error handling, which are crucial for an agent to use this tool effectively in a server with many siblings.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all parameters documented in the input schema (e.g., 'runResultId' as required ID, 'includeExempted' for filtering). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Retrieves ATC worklists' clearly states the verb ('retrieves') and resource ('ATC worklists'), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what ATC worklists are (e.g., findings, results) and does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'atcCheckVariant' or 'atcCustomizing', making it somewhat vague in context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a run result ID), exclusions, or related tools among the many siblings, such as 'atcExemptProposal' or 'atcUsers', leaving the agent without context for selection.

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