workers_balance

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

The description adds some behavioral context: 'Does not charge' indicates no side-effect (no mutation, no cost). It also explains the default group_id fallback. However, with no annotations, it lacks disclosure of auth requirements, read-only nature, or rate limits. The foreign phrase 'нужен group_id' is unclear and may confuse agents.

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 brief (three short sentences) and front-loaded with the key concept of two layers. However, the phrasing is cryptic and the foreign language fragment reduces clarity. It is concise but not optimally clear.

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 tool has a simple optional parameter and an output schema, the description is marginally complete. It explains the two-layer balance and default behavior, but it does not explicitly state that the tool returns these balances, nor does it describe the output format. The lack of a clear purpose statement makes it slightly incomplete for an agent.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the behavior of the sole parameter 'group_id': empty uses credentials/AIWORKERS_GROUP_ID, non-empty requires a valid group. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's default value and type.

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 implies the tool returns balance information for two layers ('account.usd' and 'group.tt'), but it does not use a clear verb like 'get' or 'retrieve'. The phrase 'Two layers' is ambiguous and does not explicitly state the tool's action. Sibling tools like 'workers_salary_quote' or 'workers_tt_buy_quote' suggest balance-related queries, but the description does not differentiate itself.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions empty group_id behavior, it does not compare with other tools like 'workers_list' or 'workers_get', nor does it explain prerequisites or scenarios. The 'Does not charge' note is a behavioral hint, not usage guidance.

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