upwork_get_connects_balance

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

The description discloses the core behavior: it returns the number of available connects. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or any potential side effects. Given no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden, but the tool is simple and read-only, so a score of 3 is adequate.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences with no redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 this simple tool, the description is largely complete. It states what it does and what it returns. However, it could be improved by mentioning that it requires an active Upwork session or that the balance is updated in real-time, but the current description is sufficient.

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 has no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter semantics because none are needed.

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 retrieves the current Upwork Connects balance and returns the number of available connects. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('Connects balance'), and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools that deal with sessions, contracts, jobs, etc.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to check balance before submitting a proposal). While the tool's simplicity makes it self-explanatory, there is no explicit context or exclusion criteria.

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