list_my_kworks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, indicating no side effects and safe re-invocation. The description adds value by specifying the grouping behavior by status (активные, на паузе и т.д.), which is not captured in annotations. No contradictions observed.

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 exceptionally concise—three short, information-dense sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and uses a clear list structure for usage guidelines and related tools. Every sentence adds value without waste.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown), so the description does not need to detail return values. It explains the grouping by status, which is sufficient for a simple list operation. A minor gap: it doesn't mention whether pagination or limits apply, but this is likely inherent to a zero-parameter list.

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 has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to elaborate on parameters. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description appropriately avoids redundant information.

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 lists one's own kworks (services) grouped by status. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_kwork_details (detailed view of a single kwork) and start_kwork/pause_kwork (management actions), establishing a unique role.

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 states when to use: 'для просмотра всех своих услуг и их текущих статусов' (to view all services and their current statuses). It also lists related tools, providing context for alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use, which would improve the score.

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