Judge whether a standup is due

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the priority order, that working days are an input not computed, and the return format, ensuring agents understand what the tool does and its limitations.

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 concise and well-structured: a brief purpose statement, a bullet-like list of trigger conditions in priority order, a critical note about working days, and the return format. Every sentence is informative.

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 5 parameters, zero annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the logic and return values adequately. However, it lacks explicit parameter format details (e.g., date format for 'today').

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?

Although schema coverage is 0%, the description gives meaning to parameters by referencing them in the logic (e.g., gate_reached, dependency_intersection, today, last_standup_date, working_days_since_last_standup). It clarifies their role without defining formats.

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's verb ('Judge whether a standup is due') and resource ('standup'). It details the priority logic, distinguishing it from sibling tools like evaluate_gate or kickoff_plan.

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 clear context on when the tool should be used (to determine standup due based on triggers) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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