rank_backlog

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

No annotations provided, but the description fully compensates by disclosing deterministic behavior (pure arithmetic, no LLM call), rational breakdown, auto-archiving to history, and trend delta computation. All key behavioral traits are covered.

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 concise but dense, packing many details into a single paragraph. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but could benefit from clearer sectioning or bullet points for readability without losing content.

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?

Given no output schema, the description specifies the return format ({method, count, ranking[]}), explains deterministic behavior, and covers archiving and integration with other tools (e.g., get_planning_history). The presence of sibling tools provides context, and the description is complete enough.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description explains defaults for method and limit, and notes that status/label filters mirror 'list_initiatives'. It adds meaning beyond the schema, though it does not explain possible values for 'method' or 'status' label ranges.

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 clearly states the tool scores initiatives and returns top-N descending, with specific verb 'rank' and resource 'backlog'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_initiatives' (listing) and 'score_initiative' (single) by focusing on ranking and aggregation.

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 mentions optional filters that mirror 'list_initiatives', default values for method and limit, and auto-archiving. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'score_initiative' or 'list_initiatives', though the purpose implies ranking use cases.

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