team_workload

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

With no annotations, the description fully handles transparency. It details the filtering logic, load calculation, exclusion of done tasks, and the note about sprint_id degradation. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, though the context suggests it's a report.

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 summary paragraph, parameter list, and a caveat note. It front-loads the purpose. Slightly verbose but still efficient.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description covers behavior, parameters, and edge cases (sprint_id note). It is complete enough for an agent to use 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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description provides detailed explanations for all 8 parameters, including defaults and behavior (e.g., 'subtasks_only: Count only subtasks... Default True'). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 starts with 'Report who is over- or under-loaded, in one call,' which is a clear, specific verb+resource statement. It further explains the composition of workload metrics, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools.

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 implicitly indicates when to use (for workload analysis) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternative tools. Given the sibling list includes generic CRUD and other reporting tools, some usage guidance would help, but the purpose is clear enough.

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