Get focus

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature ('Returns') and the categories of tasks surfaced, which is useful. However, it does not explain how 'stale' is determined (beyond the stale_hours parameter), whether the result is sorted, or what happens if no tasks match.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and the categories of tasks returned. It is concise and readable, though it could add a brief note about the stale_hours parameter without becoming bloated.

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 read-only snapshot tool with two simple parameters, the description is mostly adequate. However, the lack of any parameter explanation and the absence of an output schema mean the agent must guess at the return shape and the exact meaning of stale_hours. A brief clarification of the parameter and the response format would make it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the purpose of the tool but does not explicitly define project_id or stale_hours. The stale_hours parameter is only implicitly referenced by the word 'stale' in the description, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from the schema's min/max constraints.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('what matters now for a project') and enumerates the categories of tasks included (top priority, blocked, stale, in progress). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project or list_tasks, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 this is the tool to call when an agent needs a prioritized snapshot of a project's current focus. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over list_tasks or get_project, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the required project_id.

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