Read resource pool

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'The pool is never changed,' which is redundant with readOnlyHint, and contextual detail about source types and contents, but no new behavioral traits such as auth needs or snapshot semantics. With annotations carrying the main burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 efficiently enumerates what is shown and ends with the key behavioral guarantee. No filler or redundant sentences.

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 no-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is complete enough: it explains what is returned and that the pool is unchanged. Nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing, since return details are covered by the output schema.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify, and the schema is empty.

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 uses a specific verb ('Shows') and clearly identifies the resource ('current resource pool source') plus its contents (roles, teams, people, calendars) and state (whether a unit of work is open). This distinguishes it from siblings like rillsoft_resource_pool_resource_get (single resource) and rillsoft_resource_pool_catalog_list (catalog listing).

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 states what the tool returns but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no conditions for calling it versus siblings. Usage is only weakly implied by the read-only framing, matching the calibration case where a clear purpose without usage context scored 2.

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