The growth moves this founder has said yes to and handed to you, oldest first: job_id, the move, its rank, the state and brief_url. WHEN: at the start of a session, and whenever they ask what is waiting on you. A yes on the Feed puts one here; claim it with pick_up_job before you start. Free; requires the 'act' scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With annotations showing readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description still adds meaningful behavioral context: ordering oldest first, the Feed relationship, the need to claim via pick_up_job, cost-free usage, and the required 'act' scope. It does not explicitly address side effects, but 'list' plus the described lifecycle is sufficient for this case.
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 compact, front-loaded with the core output, then gives when to use it, how items arrive, how to proceed, and auth/cost. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant prose.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is complete: it gives the fields returned, ordering, trigger conditions, the upstream source, the downstream action, and the required scope. An agent can decide to call it and know what to expect.
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?
There are zero parameters and the schema is fully covered, so the description has no parameter burden. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for it to clarify; it correctly spends no space on parameters.
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 exactly what the tool does: lists growth moves the founder approved and handed over, ordered oldest first, and enumerates the returned fields (job_id, move, rank, state, brief_url). It also distinguishes itself from the feed by explaining those moves enter this queue after a yes on the Feed.
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?
WHEN is explicit: at the start of a session and whenever the founder asks what is waiting. It also guides the next step by saying to use pick_up_job before starting, and ties the queue to the Feed. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, leaving the when-not guidance implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, and descriptions are thorough. A few pairs (e.g., ship_move vs set_output_status, dismiss_gap vs skip_move) overlap on the dismissal concept but operate on different surfaces, so an agent can usually tell them apart with careful reading.
All tool names follow the same snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_move, create_checkout, untrack_prompt). Retrieval tools consistently use get_ for single items and list_ for collections, and action verbs are precise, so the naming is fully predictable.
42 tools is heavy by any standard, exceeding the 25+ threshold in the calibration. While each tool may earn its place given the breadth of the domain, the sheer number will overwhelm an agent and complicate tool selection.
The tool set covers the main lifecycles well: moves (list/get/ship/skip/archive/undo/update), outputs (list/get/ship/redraft), connections (list/start/poll/disconnect), prompts (track/untrack/list), and scans (refresh/get/set intensity). Minor gaps exist, such as no direct edit for KB pages, but record_insight partially fills that.