jira_daily_standup_summary

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

Annotations indicate read-only and idempotent. Description adds context on return values (metadata, counts, blockers, workload) beyond annotations. No contradiction, but no extra behavioral details like auth needs.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, returns, and parameter constraints. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste.

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?

Covers purpose, return values, and parameter usage. Output schema exists, so return details are covered. Could mention agile board context, but sufficient for a focused tool.

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 descriptions already detail each parameter. The description reinforces the mutual exclusivity of sprint_id and board_id, adding value without redundancy.

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 'Compile a daily-standup-style picture of a sprint' with specific return items (sprint metadata, counts, blockers, workload). Distinguishes from siblings like jira_list_sprint_issues by focusing on aggregated summary.

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?

Specifies input conditions: either sprint_id or board_id must be supplied, with fallback to active sprint. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the constraint is clear.

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