pickup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It never states that this is a read-only aggregation, whether api_key authentication is required, whether calling it mutates state (e.g. claims or consumes inbox items), or how the ranked output is shaped.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the session-check-in framing before listing contents. Every clause adds a returned artifact; no filler, though the noun pile-up is slightly hard 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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and four undocumented parameters, the description does useful work by naming the returned payload categories, which partially substitutes for a missing output schema. It still leaves authentication, mutation behavior, and parameter meaning unexplained.

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?

Four parameters with 0% schema description coverage and no mention in the description. 'agent', 'api_key', 'project', and 'max_tokens' are entirely undocumented, and the description does not compensate by explaining scoping or token-budget behavior.

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?

States a specific verb-scope (start-of-session check-in) and enumerates what it aggregates: ready subtasks, inbox, leftovers ranked by expertise, and user preferences. That enumeration distinguishes it from single-purpose siblings like board, msg_recv, and who, though the name 'pickup' alone carries no meaning.

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?

'Start-of-session check-in' implies the moment to use it, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative for narrower needs (e.g. use board or msg_recv if you only want one slice). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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