rate_worker

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the rating action and the 24-hour constraint but does not specify whether ratings can be updated, if they are anonymous, or what side effects occur (e.g., reputation impact). This is adequate but minimal.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and constraint. Every word is informative, with no unnecessary content.

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's simplicity (3 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and a key time constraint. It is nearly complete, though it could optionally mention if ratings are mutable or if they affect reputation, but these are not critical for basic usage.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already details all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-specific info beyond what is in the schema (e.g., 'score' range is already documented). The mention of '1-5 star' is redundant with the schema's minimum/maximum.

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 action (rating a worker), the scale (1-5 stars), timing (after task completion), and a critical constraint (24-hour window). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'approve_task' or 'dispute_task' by focusing on feedback.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (after task completion) and a time limit (within 24 hours). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives like 'dispute_task' or 'get_pending_reviews', though the context implies it is for completed, non-disputed tasks.

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