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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: it covers every team by default unless team_id narrows it, and filters by status, assignee, and date. This goes beyond the schema, which only describes individual parameters.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place. It avoids restating the schema and includes only high-value context like scope and the alternative tool.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the cross-retrospective scope, default team behavior, available filters, and directs to the board-specific alternative. No critical context is missing.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all five parameters with types and defaults. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond mapping filters to concepts like status, assignee, and date, but it does not introduce new syntax or format details.

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 returns action items across all retrospectives at once, distinguishing it from the sibling tool retro.board.actions.list which works on a single board. The verb 'Returns' and the resource 'action items across all retrospectives' are specific and 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?

Explicitly explains when to use this tool: to get actions across all boards instead of walking them one by one with retro.board.actions.list. It also mentions filtering by status, assignee, and date, giving clear context for usage.

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