get_oke_work_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'detailed information' and lists return fields, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's a read-only operation, error handling, authentication requirements, rate limits, or latency. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 well-structured and concise. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections that efficiently document inputs and outputs. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics well, but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines. Without annotations or output schema, it should ideally provide more context on error cases or response structure to be fully complete.

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 description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema. The schema has 0% description coverage (only a title 'Work Request Id'), but the description specifies that 'work_request_id' is an 'OCID of the work request', clarifying its format and purpose. Since there's only one parameter, this is sufficient to compensate for the low schema 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific OKE work request.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('OKE work request'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_oke_work_requests' or 'get_oke_cluster', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_oke_work_requests' for listing multiple work requests or other 'get_' tools for different resources. There's no context on prerequisites, such as needing a specific work request ID, or exclusions.

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