Scan for dropped balls

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

The description clearly states that the tool auto-raises items (mutational behavior) and deduplicates against already open items. With no annotations, this provides essential behavioral context. However, it does not mention permissions, rate limits, or whether multiple runs cause duplicate items.

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey the tool's function and conditions. The list of trigger conditions is well-structured and easy to parse. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

While the description explains what the tool detects and deduplicates, it omits any mention of return values or results. Given no output schema, describing the output (e.g., list of raised items or confirmation) would improve completeness.

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, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The baseline score of 4 applies as the schema coverage is 100%.

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's purpose as scanning for 'dropped balls' (action items) and specifies exactly which conditions trigger automatic raising of items. It distinguishes from sibling tools like action_item_resolve by focusing on detection rather than resolution.

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 usage for proactive identification of overdue or stale items but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. Sibling tool action_item_resolve suggests complementary use, but no guidance is given.

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