ready_work

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses real behavior: a 'blocked' task whose blocker was resolved or deleted DOES appear, and unblocking is surfaced rather than automatic. It also documents the per-item age_days/idle_days fields. It stops short of stating read-vs-write safety explicitly or pagination behavior, but the disclosure is well beyond the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core rule, then the sibling contrast, then the edge case. Four sentences with modest editorial flourish ('it is your move', 'a number that includes work you cannot move') that reads well but is slightly padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation isn't required, yet the description adds useful field context anyway. It covers scope, edge case, and follow-up action; only input parameter behavior remains unaddressed.

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 0% and the description never mentions the two input parameters (limit, fields). It only explains output fields (age_days, idle_days). By the low-coverage rule the description should compensate for limit/fields defaulting and format, and it does not.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: 'open obligations addressed to you that are NOT sitting behind a live blocker, oldest first.' It explicitly differentiates from the sibling open_obligations by naming the distinct question each answers ('how much do you owe' vs 'what do you pick up'). An agent can separate it from peers without opening any schema.

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?

Names the alternative (open_obligations) and the exact condition that selects this tool (session start, deciding what to pick up). It also routes the follow-up action to set_work_status for resuming a now-unblocked task, so the when-to-use path is fully specified.

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