ready_work

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it discloses that tasks with resolved/deleted blockers DO appear, that unblocking is surfaced but never automatic, and that each item carries age_days and idle_days. It does not contradict the read-only annotation. It could add more about pagination or exact output shape, but the output schema exists and the behavioral notes are valuable.

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 dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then adds the key distinction and edge-case behavior. It is somewhat long but every sentence earns its place: the open_obligations contrast, the blocker edge case, and the age_days/idle_days note are all useful. It could be slightly more scannable with a break, but it is not bloated.

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 an output schema, the description need not explain return values. It covers the core question, the distinction from the sibling, the edge case of resolved blockers, and the action to take (set_work_status). The only gap is parameter semantics for limit/fields, but with 0 required parameters and an output schema, the description is largely complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the description carries the burden for parameter semantics. However, the description does not explain the 'limit' or 'fields' parameters at all. The schema itself provides titles and defaults, but no descriptions. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so a baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema has some structure but the description does not compensate for the 0% 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'ready_work' returns open obligations addressed to you that are not behind a live blocker, oldest first. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling open_obligations by contrasting 'how much do you owe' with 'what do you pick up'. This is a clear, specific purpose that an agent can act on.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool versus open_obligations: use ready_work at the start of a session to decide what to pick up, while open_obligations answers the total amount owed including blocked work. It also explains the edge case of resolved/deleted blockers and directs the agent to set_work_status to resume such tasks. This is explicit when/when-not guidance with named alternatives.

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