passgage_list_user_extra_works

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions optional filtering and pagination, which gives some behavioral context, but it does not disclose auth needs, response format, or potential side effects. Since 'list' implies a read-only operation, this is minimally acceptable but lacks depth.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential information without any fluff. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 list tool with a simple schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not explain what user_extra_works are, what the response contains (no output schema), or any filtering specifics beyond the schema. Given the complexity of the nested filters object, more context would help, but the schema partially compensates.

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?

The input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all three parameters, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no new meaning beyond 'optional filtering and pagination', which is redundant with the schema. Therefore, the baseline of 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'List user_extra_works'. It uses a specific verb and resource, and adds scope by mentioning optional filtering and pagination. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get/create/update/delete for the same resource and other list tools.

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 this tool is for listing user_extra_works, but it does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., get for a single record, or other list tools). No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so the usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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