FeatQ

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format (markdown) but not whether anything is persisted or mutated, whether it is idempotent, whether it requires auth, or whether generation is slow/expensive — significant gaps for an unannotated generation tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb, output artifact, and scope all land immediately. Nothing redundant or padded.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description should say more about what happens after generation and what the agent gets back. Instead it leaves the agent guessing about persistence, side effects, and failure modes.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that "id" identifies a feature request, which is genuine added meaning over the bare schema property, but it gives no format, source, or example for that identifier.

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 states a specific verb ("Generate") and resource ("agent-ready markdown implementation spec") scoped to "one feature request." That is clearly distinguishable from the retrieval/status siblings, though it never names an alternative to reinforce the distinction.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., whether the request id must already exist), and no mention of alternatives such as get_request for simply reading a request. Usage is only weakly implied by "for one feature request."

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the content of the response (counts, vote totals, top requests), which is useful for a tool with no output schema, but says nothing about authorization needs, scope of 'connected board', caching, or rate limits.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and payload contents, with no filler or redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description usefully names what is returned, and the read-only nature is implicit in 'Get'. It is adequate for a simple zero-arg read tool, though it could state that results are for the currently connected board only and how 'top' is defined.

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 baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The absence of arguments is consistent with the empty 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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('board stats') and enumerates the contents (request counts, vote totals, top requests), so the agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_ranked_requests or list_requests, so it falls short of a 5.

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 enumerated payload implies the tool is for a board-level summary view, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not, and no sibling is named as an alternative (get_ranked_requests could plausibly be confused with 'top requests'). Usage is only inferable.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the scoring formula (1 point per vote, 0.5 per comment), a 90-day decay so recent demand outranks old, and tie-breaking to the newer request. It stops short of stating read-only-ness explicitly or whether results are paginated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with what is returned and the exclusion rule, then explains ranking. Dense but every clause carries meaning; only slightly long.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone — and it explains what is returned and how ordering is computed. It omits the result shape/pagination and the limit parameter, which is a minor gap for a simple read tool.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter 'limit' is never mentioned in the description. 'Top requests' implies a bounded ranked list, but the default of 5 and maximum of 20 are left for the schema alone, so the description does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the top feature requests') plus the scope constraint ('excluding requests already marked done'), which separates it from the sibling list_requests. It does not name an alternative tool outright, but the ranking/exclusion scope makes the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the ranking semantics — call it when you want the highest-demand requests rather than an unfiltered list — but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or pointer to list_requests/get_request as alternatives. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the response bundles the request's comments, but it says nothing about read-only nature, authorization requirements, rate limits, or behavior when the id does not exist.

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?

A single tight sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing needs to be trimmed.

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 simple one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers the essential shape of the result (request plus comments). It omits what happens on a bad/missing id and gives no hint about the id's form, which a caller would need.

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?

One required parameter with 0% schema description coverage. The phrase 'one feature request' implies the id selects a single record, but the description gives no detail on id format or accepted values, leaving the schema gap only partially compensated.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (one feature request) on a named board, and adds that comments are included in the payload. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_requests, but the singular 'one' plus 'with its comments' implicitly separates it from the list variant.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no naming of alternatives such as list_requests or get_ranked_requests. The agent must infer from the tool name alone that this is the single-record lookup versus the list tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one key behavior: 'Read only,' which correctly establishes a safe, non-mutating operation. However, it says nothing about pagination, ordering, scope limits ('watched' pages), or what a 'claim' object contains — meaningful gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and 'Read only' lands early. The closing aphorism is somewhat editorial but compact. No wasted preamble.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover behavior and returns, and it does not. An agent cannot tell what a 'claim' is, what the three states mean, or how results are ordered or truncated, all of which are needed to call this correctly.

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 0% and the description mentions neither parameter. In particular, the 'state' enum (new/added/dismissed) with its default of 'new' is completely opaque, yet it is the primary filter determining what the agent sees. Only 'list' implies the limit parameter's purpose; the state semantics are unaddressed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List what watched competitor comparison pages say about this product.' The domain (competitor claims about this product) is clear and distinct from the request/spec/board-stat siblings. It only lacks an explicit contrast with any sibling, but the subject matter already separates it.

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?

No statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, no mention of when the result set would be empty or irrelevant. 'Claims are signals, not votes' is interpretive guidance about output meaning, not usage guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it does not disclose ordering defaults, pagination limits, filtering behavior, or read-only characteristics. It only states the board scope, leaving key operational traits implicit.

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 and is front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It omits essential details needed to call the tool correctly.

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 three optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description is not complete enough. It establishes the basic purpose but does not cover filtering, sorting, limits, or return behavior.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for its three parameters, and the description does not mention sort, limit, or status at all. It adds no meaning beyond the raw schema, leaving all parameter semantics undocumented.

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 states a clear verb and resource: "List feature requests" for the connected FeatQ board. It is understandable without opening the schema, but it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like get_ranked_requests or get_request.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_ranked_requests, get_request, or filtered listing behavior. It only implies basic listing usage and provides no exclusions or selection criteria.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important side effect: marking a request 'done' publishes it to the public changelog. However, it omits whether status changes require permissions, whether they are reversible, and what effect the other enum values have, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action leads and the side effect follows. Appropriately sized, though it could have used the space it saves to cover a parameter or two.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too thin. It surfaces one side effect but leaves permissions, reversibility, and enum semantics undocumented, which is inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains the 'id' format or the meaning of the status enum values (new, considering, planned, in_progress, done), leaving the parameter semantics entirely to the bare 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Update the status of a feature request'), which clearly separates it from the read-only siblings like get_request and list_requests. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it stops short of a 5, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings, nor any preconditions or exclusions. The changelog note is behavioral context, not usage guidance, so an agent gets no help deciding when this mutation is appropriate.

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