standup_digest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently explains the filtering logic (exclude stages, deadline categorization), the return type (plain-text digest), and the degradation behavior when sprint_id is absent. However, it does not mention whether the tool has any side effects or read-only nature, though the absence of destructive hints is inferred.

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 well-structured with a brief intro, a logic summary, and an Args list. It is informative without being overly verbose. Minor redundancy: 'plain-text digest' is mentioned twice (once in intro and once in logic). Still, it earns its length.

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 the tool has 5 parameters, 1 required, and no enums or nested objects, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the algorithm, parameter semantics, and a behavioral note. An output schema exists (not shown), so the lack of return value explanation is acceptable. The description is complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage in the schema. The description's Args section provides clear explanations for each parameter, including their purpose, expected format (e.g., 'ilike match' for project), defaults, and notes (e.g., sprint_id is optional but may cause errors). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 generates a daily standup digest for a project, specifying the verb 'generate' and resource 'standup digest'. It details the logic of fetching active subtasks and categorizing by deadline, distinguishing it from sibling tools like project_status_report or sprint_health which serve different purposes.

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 explains what the tool does and notes a limitation (sprint_id being a custom field), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The context implies it's for daily standup digests, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it.

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