Yougile Overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict that. It adds value by describing the scope of what is returned: structure, workflow, defaults, done columns, session permissions, and where settings change. This goes beyond the annotation to clarify what 'overview' entails, giving the agent a full picture of the information available.

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 sentence that front-loads 'Company structure' and then enumerates the covered aspects. It is dense but not redundant; every item adds information. It is concise given the breadth of content, though a slightly clearer separation of items could improve readability.

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 an overview tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides a clear idea of what will be returned: structural hierarchy, workflow chains, defaults, done columns, session permissions, and settings location. It is complete enough for an agent to know when to call it and what to expect, and it addresses the session-specific nature of permissions.

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?

Both parameters (project and include_ids) are fully described in the schema with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description does not mention the parameters, but that is acceptable given the schema already documents them. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 precisely what the tool does: it provides an overview of company structure, including projects, boards, columns, workflow chains, defaults, done columns, session permissions, and settings locations. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by being the entry point ('Start here') while siblings are specific (boards, columns, tasks). The verb is implied but the resource and scope are explicit.

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 phrase 'Start here to learn the names' gives clear usage context, implying this is the first tool to call for orientation. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list makes it evident that specific tools like yougile_boards or yougile_columns are for detailed data. So it has clear context but lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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