Fetch completed work orders to compare actual vs estimated costs, identify overruns, and calculate total maintenance spend for any date range.
Fetch completed work orders with actual vs estimated costs to calculate cost variance, overruns, and total maintenance spend in a period.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| date_to | No | End date YYYY-MM-DD | |
| worktype | No | Filter by work type (optional) | |
| date_from | No | Start date YYYY-MM-DD |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the operation is a read/fetch and that only completed work orders are returned. However, it does not disclose output shape, whether results are aggregated or per-order, or any default date/period behavior beyond what the schema implies.
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 with no filler. It states the action, resource, and purpose efficiently, and every phrase contributes to the agent's understanding.
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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is somewhat thin. It tells the agent what the tool fetches and why, but it does not specify return fields, aggregation details, or whether date parameters are effectively required to bound the analysis. This leaves moderate ambiguity for an agent planning to use the result.
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 description coverage is 75%, so the schema documents most parameters. The tool description adds the 'period' context and the 'completed work orders' scope, but it does not clarify the meaning of limit or how the date range interacts with absent dates. It provides marginal value beyond 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch completed work orders with actual vs estimated costs.' It clearly states the analytical purpose—calculating cost variance, overruns, and total maintenance spend—which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_work_orders or get_failure_analysis.
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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: whenever cost variance, overruns, or total maintenance spend in a period is needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.