cos_task_retro

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the specific metrics returned, which is useful context, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination, data freshness, or return format. It is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction.

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 concise phrase that front-loads the core purpose and key metrics. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it is not a full sentence and lacks detail. No unnecessary words are present.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description provides a basic summary of what is returned. However, it omits explanation of the 'since' parameter and does not give any context on typical usage scenarios. The presence of annotations and output schema reduces the burden, but the description still feels minimal given the amount of sibling tools and potential ambiguity.

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 for parameter meaning. The only parameter 'since' is not mentioned in the description; the schema provides a title and default but no format or semantic explanation. The description's 'weekly' hint partially implies a time range, but it does not explicitly document how 'since' works or what values are accepted.

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 identifies the tool as providing weekly retro metrics, listing specific metric types (cycle time, throughput, emergency count). This distinguishes it from daily or general metric tools, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'list'. It is specific and not a tautology.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The word 'weekly' implies a timeframe, but no exclusions or explicit alternatives are mentioned (e.g., cos_task_daily for daily metrics). The description does not help the agent choose between this and other metric/query tools.

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