list_work_slots

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the description does not contradict and adds context about the origin of work slots (created by schedule_todo, Huly UI, etc.) and that they are attached to ToDos. This enriches the behavioral model beyond annotations, though it omits details like pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No filler or repetition. It is optimally concise for an AI agent to quickly grasp the tool.

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 the tool (4 optional parameters, no required), the presence of an output schema, and the annotations, the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool lists, its source, and supported filters. The agent has sufficient information to decide when to use it.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces filtering by employee and date range but does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema provides. It does not mention the limit parameter explicitly, but this is acceptable given schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool lists scheduled work slots (specific resource) associated with ToDos, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like schedule_todo by focusing on listing rather than creating. The verb 'list' and resource 'work slots' are specific, leaving no ambiguity.

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 implies usage when an agent needs to view planned time blocks attached to ToDos, and mentions filtering by employee and date range. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, the context is clear enough. A slightly higher score would require explicit exclusion of other list tools.

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