Charlie: triage

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description adds only the basic purpose. It doesn't disclose ordering details, result stability, or side effects. With openWorldHint, the agent might need to know results can change externally, but this isn't mentioned.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. Every word contributes meaning, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Despite having an output schema and annotations, the description is too minimal. It lacks details on what constitutes 'highest-priority', how the action plan is structured, or how parameters (repo, online) affect results. More context is needed for effective use.

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 only hints at 'top_n' by name. It does not explain 'repo' or 'online' parameters. The agent gains no additional meaning beyond the parameter names and default values.

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 the top-N highest-priority toil items as an action plan. It uses specific verbs ('Return') and resources ('toil items', 'action plan'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like charlie_scan_toil or charlie_summary.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., charlie_scan_toil, charlie_summary). The description does not specify prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is preferred or should be avoided.

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