rate_worker

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the main side effect—updating worker reputation—and implies a write action. However, it does not mention permissions, whether ratings are final or can be overwritten, or what the response contains, leaving notable behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the action, timing, rating dimensions, and purpose efficiently, making every word earn its place.

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?

For a six-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is somewhat minimal. It provides the core context and the schema handles parameter definitions, but it omits important operational details such as whether sub-ratings are optional, response behavior, or any constraints beyond task completion, leaving an agent with moderate uncertainty.

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 documents each parameter. The description adds context that the rating spans quality, accuracy, timeliness, and reliability, and that score is the overall rating, but it does not provide meaningful details beyond the schema's own property descriptions.

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 action ('rates worker'), a clear trigger ('after task completion'), and the rating dimensions ('quality, accuracy, timeliness, reliability') plus the underlying purpose ('update weighted anti-Sybil reputation'). This clearly distinguishes rate_worker from siblings like approve_task or submit_result, which involve different actions and resources.

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 usage context: the creator rates the worker after task completion. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use the tool, but the timing and role are unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately among the sibling tools.

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