ratchet_report

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

With readOnlyHint and idempotentHint already declared, the description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the data source (git history) and the report contents (open ratchet marks, ages, repayment velocity). This is especially valuable because there is no output schema.

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?

Two sentences deliver the report's substance and its intended use without any filler. The key concept, 'debt burn-down,' is front-loaded, and every phrase earns its place.

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 single-optional-parameter read-only tool, the description and schema together provide output contents, data source, and usage purpose. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide when to call this tool and what it will receive.

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 100%, and the single repo parameter is already fully documented with its default behavior. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly identifies the tool as a debt burn-down report covering open ratchet marks with their age and repayment velocity from git history. The final sentence states its purpose explicitly: 'Use it to see whether marked debt is being paid down or piling up.' This subject matter distinguishes it from siblings like coupling, duplication, and worklist.

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 a clear intended use case: determining whether marked debt is being paid down or accumulating. It does not name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it misses the explicit exclusion that would earn a 5.

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