What this session still owes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds real behavior beyond them: the exact time window that counts as 'this session', what 'stale' means concretely (7+ days, nothing logged, by anyone), and how to read an empty result ('nothing is owed'). It also flags the payload is deliberately small (ids, titles, dates, one boolean), which sets size expectations without an output schema.

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?

Very tight, information-dense prose with the actionable instruction front-loaded and no filler sentences. The telegraphic fragments ('Ids, titles, dates and one boolean -- small on purpose') occasionally read as terse shorthand, but each clause carries load.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the right thing by describing the return shape, the meaning of empty results, and what `hint` is for. Remaining gaps are minor: `hint`'s structure is only gestured at, and the fact that one of `project` or `cwd` must be supplied is left to the schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning: it defines what the `hours` window counts ('the tasks you changed or wrote on in this project'), which is the operative semantics of the parameter, and clarifies the project scoping that `project`/`cwd` select. It does not explain the `model` parameter or the project-or-cwd requirement, so it stops short of full coverage.

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 defines two concrete output buckets (`yours`: tasks you changed on in this project within `hours`, with handoff status; `stale`: tasks stuck in 'doing' 7+ days) plus a `hint`, so the agent can infer this is a 'what do I still owe' status report. It never states a direct verb+resource sentence like 'returns outstanding work for this session', and it does not name a sibling such as activity_report or list_tasks, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

'Call before finishing' gives an explicit trigger for invocation, which is unusually specific for a status tool. It supplies no when-not condition and names no alternative (activity_report, list_tasks) for agents that want a broader view, so the routing guidance is clear but one-sided.

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