Get Weekly Retro

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it groups tasks by first tag, includes completion notes as quotes, optionally formats as LinkedIn draft, and includes a render field with tiered rendering guidance. No destructive actions are implied, and the description clearly communicates output handling instructions.

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 three sentences long, front-loading core purpose and behavior in the first two sentences. Every sentence adds value: purpose, key features, usage scenarios, and a critical note about the render field. No fluff or redundancy.

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 has no required parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, behavior, optional formatting, usage scenarios, and output guidance (render field). It is complete enough for an AI agent to understand what the tool does and how to use its response.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds global context (e.g., grouping behavior, LinkedIn option) but does not enhance per-parameter meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. The schema already clearly defines each parameter, so the description provides minimal additional value for parameter understanding.

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 purpose: 'Completed-task retrospective for a given week.' It specifies the verb (get), resource (completed tasks for a week), and key behaviors (groups by first tag, includes notes, optional LinkedIn format). It distinguishes from siblings like get_task_summary and get_stuck_list by emphasizing the retrospective and weekly scope.

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 context for when to use the tool: 'Useful for weekly reviews, standup prep, and public updates.' However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or contrast with similar tools. The mention of checking the render field is a usage hint but lacks when-not-to-use guidance.

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