Read a closed period's retrospective (YYYYQn) to review how a past quarter went; expect an error if the period remains open.
Use it when the user asks how a past quarter went (last quarter's retrospective).
Read a closed period's (YYYYQn) retrospective — the `result` markdown close_period
wrote. Errors while the period is still open; get_status says which ones are closed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | ||
| period | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description does useful work by disclosing that the read errors while the period is still open and that the returned content is the `result` markdown created by close_period. It does not cover authentication, rate limits, or the exact error shape, but the key behavioral traits are present.
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 primary trigger, followed by the resource semantics and the error/alternative condition. There is no redundant wording.
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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the trigger, period format, returned content, open-period error behavior, and an alternative for checking closed periods. The missing explanation of `key` is the notable remaining gap.
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, but it only clarifies the `period` parameter's YYYYQn format. The required `key` parameter is never explained, leaving an agent unsure what identifier must be supplied.
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 (Read) and resource (a closed period's retrospective), including the format (YYYYQn) and that the content is the `result` markdown written by close_period. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as get_status and close_period.
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 says to use it when the user asks how a past quarter went, and limits it to closed periods. It also names get_status as the way to determine which periods are closed, providing a clear alternative for related context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.