git_standup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as a read operation ('Get a standup report'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover other important aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (though an output schema exists). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 efficiently structured: a clear purpose statement followed by a bullet-point list of parameters with concise explanations. Every sentence earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the main functionality. There's no redundant or verbose language, making it easy to parse quickly.

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's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately. Since an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values, and it provides enough context for basic use, though it lacks guidance on usage scenarios and some behavioral details.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates well by explaining each parameter's purpose and default values in the 'Args' section. It clarifies that 'days' is the lookback period, 'author' filters by partial name match, and 'repos' specifies paths with fallback to environment variables or default directories. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it could benefit from examples or format details.

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: 'Get a standup report of recent git activity across your repos.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('standup report'), and scope ('across your repos'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'git_repos', which might also involve git repository operations.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'git_repos'. It mentions default behaviors (e.g., using environment variables or default paths) but doesn't explain scenarios where this tool is preferred or when other tools might be more appropriate, leaving the agent without clear usage context.

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