post_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that cards are 'grouped by worktree and agent on the Standup board'; it says nothing about permissions, whether posts are append-only or overwritable, side effects, or return behavior for a mutation tool.

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 tight sentences with the trigger and action front-loaded and no filler. Efficient, though it spends its second sentence on grouping metadata rather than on parameter guidance.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with nested objects (tests, filesChanged), no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves significant gaps: the 'branch' param is unaddressed, nested required fields are unexplained, and posting behavior/auth requirements are undisclosed.

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 low at 29%, so the description must compensate. It does map several params to intended content — 'what you changed' (filesChanged), 'test results' (tests), 'a short summary' (summary), 'risks' (risks), and grouping by worktree/agent — but omits 'branch' and gives no format details for the nested tests/filesChanged structures.

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 and resource ('Post a standup card') plus the trigger ('when you finish a task'). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the widget/canvas siblings (place_widget, update_widget, read_canvas, etc.), leaving the agent to infer that this is a separate standup-board concept.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use trigger: 'when you finish a task.' However, it names no alternatives and states no when-not-to-use condition, so routing versus the sibling widget tools is left to inference.

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