standup

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

With readOnlyHint=true already supplied, the description carries a lower burden, but it still adds almost nothing: no indication of whose activity is aggregated (caller vs. team), what time boundaries apply, or what shape the report takes. The three section labels are the only behavioral signal, and they repeat what the tool name implies.

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?

It is a single short fragment with no filler, and the core content (the three sections) is front-loaded. However, the telegraphic style reads more like a placeholder than a deliberate, complete statement, leaving key clauses unstated.

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 read-only report tool with two parameters, no output schema, and only one of two params documented, the description should clarify scope and result format. It lists sections but leaves the agent guessing about the data domain and the effect of 'workspace', which is not enough to call it reliably.

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 coverage is only 50%: 'since' is documented with its default while 'workspace' has no description anywhere. The phrase 'since the last working day' merely restates the schema's existing default for 'since' and gives no meaning to 'workspace', so the description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 definition names the artifact (a standup) and enumerates its three content sections: what I did since the last working day, today, and blockers. That lets an agent infer a report-generating tool, but there is no verb ('generate', 'summarize') and no scope statement (whose activity, which data sources), so the purpose is implied rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all. Nearby siblings such as changes_since and get_activity plausibly overlap with this tool, yet the description never says how to choose between them or under what circumstances a standup summary is the right call.

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