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?
Annotations are minimal (readOnly=false, destructive=false), so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It adds real context: the queue is free, requires the 'act' scope, items arrive from a Feed 'yes', and items must be claimed with pick_up_job. It also reveals ordering ('oldest first'). This meaningfully exceeds what annotations alone convey.
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 and information-dense: it states what is listed, the field names, when to use it, how items get there, how to claim them, and the cost/auth requirement — all in a few short segments. The most decision-relevant part (what the tool returns) is front-loaded, and every clause contributes to an agent's ability to invoke or select 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?
For a zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, this description is complete. It covers purpose, output contents, usage timing, lifecycle origin, claiming behavior, authorization requirement, and cost. No critical information is missing for a correct call, and there is no output schema that would otherwise need to explain return values.
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 is empty with 100% coverage, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The description instead lists the output fields, which is useful given there is no output schema. This earns a solid baseline above average because there are no parameters to misunderstand.
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 a specific verb and resource: it lists the growth moves the founder has said yes to, ordered oldest first. It goes beyond a generic 'list' by specifying the contained fields (job_id, move, rank, state, brief_url), making it easy for an agent to understand exactly what this tool returns and how it differs from a generic queue listing.
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 explicit WHEN guidance: at the start of a session and whenever the user asks what is waiting. It also explains the relationship to pick_up_job ('claim it before you start') and the Feed ('A yes on the Feed puts one here'), giving context for when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name an alternative such as list_feed, so it stops short of a full when-not-to-use comparison.
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 follow a clear action+resource pattern (get_, list_, set_, ship_, etc.) with distinct purposes. A few boundaries could cause confusion, such as get_move vs get_output (both return drafts) and ship_move vs set_output_status (both mark things shipped), though descriptions mitigate this sufficiently.
The overwhelming majority use consistent snake_case verb_noun naming (list_feed, ship_move, get_visibility). The only outlier is 'whoami', a common convention but not verb_noun; otherwise the pattern is highly predictable.
At 41 tools, the surface is well over the 25-tool threshold for 'too many'. While the domain is broad, this volume places significant cognitive load on agents and suggests some consolidation or modularization could help.
Core workflows for moves and outputs are covered (create/list/get/update/ship/skip/undo). However, the tool descriptions reference 'approve_output' as the publishing action, yet that tool is absent from the list, leaving a dead end for channel distribution. There are also no tools for editing competitors or managing Memory pages beyond recording insights.