team_workload

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

With no annotations, the description adequately discloses behavior by stating it composes records, computes metrics, and returns a verdict, implying it is a read-only report. However, it does not explicitly declare that no data is modified or mention required permissions. The explanation of the algorithmic logic partially compensates for the lack of annotations.

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 structured with a brief summary line followed by a paragraph and then the Args section. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, logic, and all parameters comprehensively. Given that an output schema exists, the description appropriately does not detail return values but provides enough context. For a report tool with seven optional parameters, the description is complete.

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 description provides a detailed 'Args' section explaining each parameter's purpose, behavior, and default values, such as 'lookahead_days' defining 'due soon' and 'subtasks_only' focusing on subtasks. Since the schema has 0% coverage, this fully compensates and adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type/name info.

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 begins with a clear verb ('Report') and resource ('who is over- or under-loaded'), and the subsequent explanation distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle other reports or CRUD operations. It states the tool produces a composite workload analysis, which is unique among the siblings.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool (to get a per-assignee load report in one call), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like search_read for detailed task lists. The context is sufficient for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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