fleet_attention

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

The description discloses read-only status, scoping, and 'Hosted API only' constraint. No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden; it adds useful behavioral context but omits details like rate limits or data freshness.

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 efficient with no wasted words, but the structure could be slightly improved for readability. It front-loads the key purpose.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, scope, and read-only nature. It could mention the output format, but it is otherwise complete.

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?

No parameters exist in the input schema, so the description has no need to add parameter info. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate.

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 uses specific verb+resource ('Triage board') and lists exact items (abandoned claims, silent holders, etc.). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by its focus on items needing human or coordinator attention.

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 (for triage) and provides scoping rules (coordinators/admins vs workers), but it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives like list_tasks or get_stats.

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