scope_of_work

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the output structure (deliverables, timeline, etc.) and states it's ready to paste into a contract. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, permissions needed, or other behavioral traits.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. First sentence communicates purpose, second lists output contents. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return value structure (deliverables, timeline, etc.) and how it will be used (paste into contract or send to client). Missing details like format (e.g., Markdown) are minor gaps.

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 baseline 3. The description adds context that the proposal is 'accepted' but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter.

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 verb 'Generate' and resource 'Scope of Work document', specifying input 'from an accepted proposal' and listing deliverables. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'contract_template' and 'change_order' by focusing on a structured SOW derived from an accepted proposal.

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 after proposal acceptance ('from an accepted proposal') but does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or mention alternatives. The context is clear, but no exclusions are given.

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