find_informal_assignments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces and extends this with 'Read-only - it changes nothing on its own.' It also discloses the detection logic, the fact that the output includes the exact assign_people call, and the caveat that a mention is not always a hand-off. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, then explains the problem context, output value, and safety caveat. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler, and the length is justified by the richness of the scenario.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is highly complete. It explains why informal assignments are a problem, what the tool reports, the exact follow-up action (assign_people call), and a human-confirmation safety note. Nothing essential is missing.

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 has 100% coverage with detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Check every project inside one board', 'Include finished tasks'). The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+object: 'Find work handed out in comments but never actually assigned.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like assign_people or find_tasks by focusing on the informal hand-off detection problem, with no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides strong context: it explains the problem scenario (teams writing 'Assigned to' in comments), states the tool reports such comments, and gives a clear 'confirm with a human before acting' warning. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative to use instead, but the purpose is so distinct that the when-to-use intent is clear.

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