Status report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'snapshot' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is a useful behavioral cue. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, nor does it mention any permissions, rate limits, or potential side effects. The description adds some value but leaves the safety profile implicit.

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, front-loaded line that conveys the core purpose and content in a compact form. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a reporting tool.

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?

The description is incomplete for an agent to call this tool correctly. It does not state how to identify the project (project_id vs project_key), whether the snapshot includes all projects by default, what the output looks like (no output schema is provided), or how the 'days' parameter filters QA runs. These are essential details for correct invocation, and the description omits them.

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 schema has 3 parameters but only 'days' has a description (coverage 33%, below the 50% threshold). The description itself never mentions any of the parameters—it does not explain what project_id or project_key are, whether one is required, or how 'days' affects the snapshot. The description fails to compensate for the schema's sparse documentation, leaving the agent to guess parameter usage.

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: 'REPORTING: snapshot do projeto' followed by a specific list of contents (board counts, time, recent failures, bugs, open investigations). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like report_ticket, time_metrics, or investigate_list, which focus on individual aspects. The verb 'snapshot' plus resource 'project' makes the intent unambiguous.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it aggregates status for a quick overview, nor does it exclude cases where more specific tools (e.g., time_metrics, investigate_list) would be preferred. Without this context, an agent might select it inappropriately or miss it when needed.

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