Open an FLHA (field-level hazard assessment)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses auto-drafting of hazards, inclusion of PPE and muster point, and crew add-ons. Missing details: return value (e.g., FLHA ID), error handling (e.g., duplicate FLHA), and what happens if job scope is unavailable.

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 four sentences with zero waste. Each sentence provides unique information: opening action, auto-drafting, crew additions, and necessity. Front-loaded with the main action.

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 6-parameter tool without output schema, the description covers the workflow well but omits the return value (likely an FLHA ID) and does not address idempotency or error conditions. Not fully complete for confident agent invocation.

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 low (33%), so description must compensate. It explains that extraHazards are 'site-specific hazards' and implies siteConditions describes on-site factors. However, required fields like jobId, crew, and openedBy are not elaborated beyond schema types, so added value is moderate.

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 opens the day's FLHA for a job before work starts, automatically drafting hazards from a specific library. It distinguishes from siblings like flha_signoff by focusing on the opening step.

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 says to use it 'before work starts' and emphasizes necessity with 'No FLHA, no blasting.' However, it does not explicitly exclude cases when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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