list_new_work

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys that this is an incremental cursor read suitable for repeated polling, which is useful. But it omits what happens when no cursors are supplied, whether it's read-only/safe, and any rate or auth constraints.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the incremental-scope constraint front-loaded before the scheduling advice. Every clause 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 2-param read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It leaves the omitted-cursor behavior and the return shape unexplained, which an agent would need to poll correctly.

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 0% and neither afterQuestId nor afterGigPostId is described in the schema. The phrase 'ids you saw last' hints that both params are cursors from previous responses, partially compensating. It does not explain that they are optional or the default behavior when omitted.

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?

Names the two resources (quests and gig posts) and the discriminating scope: items 'newer than the ids you saw last'. This separates it from siblings list_quests and list_gig_posts, which enumerate rather than incrementally poll. Phrasing is telegraphic but understandable.

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?

Says to call it on a schedule to react to new work first, which implies a polling/cursor use case. However, it never names list_quests or list_gig_posts as the alternatives for full enumeration, nor states when this tool is inappropriate. Usage is implied rather than specified.

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