rynmesh_list_work_results

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' weakly implies a read operation, and the phrase 'signed provider work-result messages' gives domain context, but it does not state read-only behavior, pagination, ordering, access requirements, or any side effects.

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 sentence with no filler and places the verb 'List' first. It is appropriately short, though the brevity comes at the cost of critical operational details.

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?

With five optional filter parameters and no output schema, the description needs to explain parameter semantics and likely return behavior. It only communicates the high-level resource type, which is insufficient for an agent to confidently construct a correct, purposeful call.

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 five parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description mentions none of them. An agent cannot determine the meaning or allowed values of status, network_id, work_order_id, provider_peer_id, or requester_peer_id from the available text.

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 ('List') and a specific resource: 'signed provider work-result messages visible in the registry mailbox.' It clearly identifies what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from similar sibling tools like rynmesh_poll_work_orders or rynmesh_publish_work_result.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rynmesh_poll_work_orders or rynmesh_list_job_capacities. No context, exclusions, or alternative tool names are provided, leaving the selection decision mostly to inference.

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