list_work_experiences

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

The description discloses pagination (total_count, items), but without annotations, it lacks details on authentication, rate limits, whether results are ordered, or what happens with no results. Basic but adequate for a simple read operation.

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 two sentences: the first states purpose and filters, the second covers pagination. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence adds value.

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 simplicity (list with pagination) and that the output schema exists, the description covers the main points. Minor gaps include lack of default ordering or error behavior, but overall adequate.

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% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds context about optional filtering ('optionally filtered to a specific resume and/or only current roles') but does not provide new meaning beyond summarizing the schema.

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 'List' and the resource 'work experiences', with optional filters. It distinguishes from single-item tools like get_work_experience but not from other list tools or search_work_experiences.

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 implies usage through optional filters (resume_id, current_only) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus search_work_experiences or alternatives. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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