Query active work

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description's 'Read-only' phrase is redundant but harmless. It adds genuine behavioral value beyond annotations by disclosing the result shape (joins intent to agent, claims, latest ChangeSet, dependent intent ids, and OPEN/COORDINATING conflict counts), array capping by limit, and the surprising default that with no filters it returns intents of every status including finished ones.

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?

Three focused sentences with zero filler: purpose and examples, result shape and safety, default behavior and sibling routing. The most decision-relevant information (what it does, how results look) is front-loaded, and the sibling routing closes the description. Every sentence earns 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 complex query tool with no output schema, the description compensates well by describing the joined result shape, the capping behavior, and the unfiltered default. The exhaustive schema covers parameter semantics, so the only gap is exact output field names/types, which the narrative join description largely mitigates. Minor omissions like pagination details are covered by the limit parameter's schema description.

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%: limit, status, agent_id, and the nested scope object all have thorough descriptions, including the loose symbol-matching caveat. The description reinforces the semantic mapping of filters to questions (owner/status/scope) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Search intents by owner, status or scope') and illustrates the purpose with concrete questions ('who is changing this symbol, or which work still has open conflicts'). It also names the siblings it is not ('Use get_intent when you already have an id, and status for a grouped overview'), so an agent can distinguish it from confusable read-only tools without opening schemas.

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 explicitly routes the agent to alternatives with the triggering condition: 'Use get_intent when you already have an id, and status for a grouped overview of everything at once.' It also embeds usage signals via the example questions and states the default no-filter behavior, which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate versus when a narrower lookup is better.

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