get_staffs_by_work_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states only the purpose and does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. The description does not go beyond the basic function.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should clarify what is returned (e.g., list of staff objects). It also does not mention pagination behavior despite the page and per_page parameters. The description omits details that would help the agent fully understand the tool's usage and responses.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions 'by Annict work ID' which corresponds to the work_id parameter, but this does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. No additional parameter-level context is given.

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 'Get', resource 'staff for an anime work', and method 'by Annict work ID'. It provides examples of staff roles (e.g., directors, animation studio) and differentiates from sibling 'get_staffs_by_ids' by specifying the lookup key.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool: when you have an Annict work ID and need staff. It provides clear context for use but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, such as when staff IDs are available (in which case get_staffs_by_ids would be appropriate).

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