daily_standup

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior on its own. It states the operation ('Add'), the target ('today's daily note'), and the entry format. Yet it does not mention whether this appends vs. replaces, whether the daily note is created if absent, or what the response is, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and no filler. The phrase 'yesterday, today, blockers' is compact and 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?

For a small tool with a fully described schema, the description adequately covers purpose and format. The only notable omission is behavior around missing daily notes or append semantics, which would make it more complete, but it is not necessary for basic use.

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 the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description only repeats the field names without adding new semantic detail, so it meets the baseline but doesn't exceed it.

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 identifies the tool's function: adding a daily standup/scrum entry to today's daily note, and explicitly names the classic standup fields (yesterday, today, blockers), which distinguishes it from generic note-editing siblings like append_to_daily_note and daily_journal_entry.

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 implies when to use it (to record a standup entry in the daily note) and even contrasts with general note tools by specifying the standup format. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it relies on the reader to infer the appropriate context.

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