OpenHuddle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: edits auto-claim for 30 minutes and claims protect against concurrent teammate agents. It says nothing about what happens on a conflict, whether you can release someone else's claim, or what an error looks like, which are the risky unknowns for a locking tool.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the two secondary modes. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

For a three-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, all three modes, and the key TTL behavior well enough to invoke it correctly. It stops short of describing check's return meaning (held vs. task-area status is named but not how it is reported) or conflict handling.

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 coverage is 100%, so paths and task_key are already documented, but the action enum is only labeled 'What to do' in the schema. The description compensates by explaining the semantics of each enum value (claim/check/release), which is genuine added meaning rather than repetition.

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 gives concrete verbs and a resource: reserving files so concurrent agents do not collide, plus a check and release mode. It is clear what the tool operates on (file paths in a repo), but it never contrasts itself with siblings like plan or task, leaving the agent to infer where claiming fits in the wider team workflow.

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?

Each action carries an explicit trigger: claim when you are about to change files, check to see whether files are held or sit in a teammate's task area, release when you are done. That is strong when-to-use coverage for all three modes, but no exclusions or alternatives are named (e.g., when not to bother claiming).

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose real traits: close is permission-gated ('whoever started it, or the team owner'), design requires a proposal that becomes idea #1, and react requires a reason. It says nothing about mutability of the read actions, whether closed huddles are immutable, notification effects on teammates, or error behavior when the huddle is not open.

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?

One dense paragraph with zero filler sentences; each clause maps to a distinct action. The opening tagline 'Think together like a real dev team' is atmosphere rather than information, and the action list would read better as separate lines, but the sizing is appropriate for a 7-action, 13-parameter tool.

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?

For a multi-action tool with 13 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers every action and several key constraints (permissions on close, required proposal for design). It still leaves return shapes for list/get unexplained and gives no guidance on state requirements, which an agent needs before calling idea/comment/react.

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 description coverage is 100% and every parameter description already carries its action prefix, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds marginal value by narrating how parameters combine per action (design proposal becomes idea #1, react needs vote plus reason), but it repeats rather than extends the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a concrete resource (huddle) and enumerates all seven actions with a specific verb and object for each (start/list/get/idea/comment/react/close), so an agent can tell what the tool does. It stops short of differentiating itself from siblings like team_post or team_ask, which also appear to handle team communication.

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?

Each action carries an implied usage condition (review = ask teammates to look at a branch/commit/task; standup = everyone posts done/next/blockers; close = record the decision), and 'optionally only with some people' scopes start. However there is no explicit guidance on when to open a huddle versus posting via team_post/team_ask, nor any stated prerequisites such as needing an open huddle for idea/comment/react.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that edit replaces or appends a single section, that a new title creates a section, that submit starts a team vote, and that vote targets the version currently being voted on (an implicit multi-step workflow). It omits permission/ownership requirements and what happens to a version after a vote resolves, but the workflow disclosure is substantive.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the resource definition comes first, then a compact action-by-action breakdown, then the usage caveat. The section list is a long run-on but each clause maps to a distinct action/parameter, so little is wasted.

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?

All four enum actions are covered, the edit semantics and section vocabulary are explained, and a usage caveat is present. Since there is no output schema, return values need not be described, and the main remaining gap is the absence of permission/ownership context for a collaborative mutation 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions on every property, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the mode semantics (replace default vs append) and enumerates the valid section names (Idea, Who it is for, Must-haves, etc.) and the title-adds-a-section behavior, adding mild value 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 names the resource (the team's shared master prompt) and enumerates all four actions (get/edit/submit/vote) with what each does, so the agent can map each enum value to an outcome. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling team_* tools or explain why this tool rather than team_post/team_reply would be used.

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 closing line 'Only edit or vote when your user asks' gives one concrete usage constraint, which is useful. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer get vs submit, when a vote is appropriate, or how this tool relates to the team_* siblings that likely cover adjacent collaboration actions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: replace=true 'drops tasks nobody started', the skeleton-task-first invariant, and the dependency ordering convention. It does not cover permissions/authority beyond the 'usually the lead's job' hint, error behavior, or what happens to already-started tasks under replace.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the workflow rule, then per-action glosses; every sentence does work. It is fairly dense and the 'Contracts first' editorial could be tighter, but nothing is redundant.

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?

There is no output schema and only three parameters at full coverage, so the description's job is to explain the actions, the replace semantics, and the ordering invariant — all of which it does. An agent has enough to select an action and construct a valid tasks payload without further guessing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining the enum semantics in operational terms (create = save a plan, add = append, list = show the board) and by prescribing how the tasks payload should be shaped (own folder area, explicit dependencies), which the schema alone does not convey.

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 opening sentence gives a concrete verb+resource ('turn the locked master prompt into tasks') and then enumerates the three modes (create/add/list with plain-language glosses). It is clearly distinguishable from plan-level tooling versus the single-task siblings, but it never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

It supplies real usage context: this is 'usually the lead's job', it is used after the master prompt is locked, and 'add tasks later' is the follow-up case. However, it never states when NOT to use it or points to the alternative tools (task, claim) for single-task edits or claiming work.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it partially does: it conveys the state transition of each action ('release: give it back', 'done: finish') and the social obligation that done takes a one-line change note. It says nothing about irreversibility of done, permissions, concurrency/race behavior on take, or error handling — significant omissions for a mutation-heavy tool.

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?

One lead sentence plus a tight action-by-action list; no filler, and the overall scope is front-loaded before the per-action detail.

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?

For a nine-action polymorphic tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs and action semantics but says nothing about what 'list' returns, what keys look like beyond the schema example, or what success/failure responses look like — leaving the agent to guess at outcomes.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by mapping actions to parameters (which actions need a key, that note is required for done as 'what changed for others') — a mapping the schema does not make explicit since only 'action' is required.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Work the task board') and then enumerates all nine actions with one-line meanings, so an agent knows exactly what each mode does. However it never distinguishes itself from the similarly-named sibling 'claim', which overlaps with the 'take: claim an open task' action — a real ambiguity for tool selection.

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?

Each action carries its own contextual guidance (e.g., 'start: begin (only when its dependencies are done)', 'accept/decline: answer a task proposed to you', 'assign: give a task to a teammate'), which is unusually good routing within the tool. It stops short of saying when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'claim' or 'plan'.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: an immediate live-status response, a ~20 second synchronous answer when the peer agent is active, and fallback delivery via 'team news' otherwise. It omits whether the call has any side effects (e.g., does it affect the teammate's state or notify them), which is a gap for an inter-agent messaging tool.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and the timing/delivery information in the second sentence earns its place. Slightly dense but free of filler.

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?

For a 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the key missing context: the response arrives immediately as live status and the actual answer may be deferred to team news. It could still clarify what the immediate status payload contains.

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 coverage is 100%, so 'to' and 'question' are already documented in the schema. The description illustrates the kind of question to supply but adds no format or constraint details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb (ask) and resource (a teammate's agent) and grounds it with three concrete example questions, so the agent knows the operation is a directed question to a peer agent rather than a broadcast. It does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings like team_post or team_reply, leaving that distinction to inference.

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?

Three example scenarios ('what they are doing', 'whether you may change a file they hold', 'why they chose something') make the intended use case clear, and the async delivery note implies when a synchronous alternative is not needed. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative sibling tool.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real behavioral constraints not in the schema: keep it to one or two sentences, and never include secrets. It says nothing about visibility (whole team vs channel), permanence, notification behavior, or whether the post can be edited or retracted — meaningful gaps for a broadcast mutation.

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 compact sentences that front-load the core action and then enumerate the content modes. The secrets warning is a brief imperative with no filler; every clause earns its place.

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?

For a simple three-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, content kinds, length, and a security constraint. It is nearly sufficient, missing only the downstream effects of posting (visibility, permissions, follow-up via team_reply).

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description loosely reinforces semantics ('a decision and why') but adds no syntax, length, or format detail beyond what the schema fields already state.

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 gives a clear verb+resource — telling the team something — and breaks the action into its two concrete modes (progress update, decision). It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from siblings like team_ask or team_sync, so an agent must infer that this is the broadcast/announce tool rather than the question or sync tool.

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?

It implies when to use the tool by enumerating acceptable content (progress update, decision with rationale) and adds a 'Never include secrets' constraint. However, it never states when NOT to use it or names the alternative siblings (team_ask, team_reply, team_sync), so routing between the team_* tools is left to inference.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds genuine guidance about answer content ('answer truthfully... say so when you don't know'), which is unusual and useful. However, it discloses nothing about delivery semantics — whether the asker is notified, whether the reply is durable, or what happens on an invalid ask_id.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the behavioral expectation. Every clause earns its place; nothing is padded.

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?

For a two-parameter reply tool with no output schema, the description covers what to do and how to answer. The remaining gap is post-reply behavior (notification, persistence), which is minor for this tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description reinforces the ask_id format with the 'ids like Q3' example, adding marginal value beyond the schema's own 'e.g. Q3' example. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Answer a question a teammate's agent asked you'), which is clearly the reciprocal of the sibling team_ask. It does not explicitly name team_ask as the counterpart, but the direction of the action is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied: this is the tool for responding to an inbound question from a teammate's agent. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. team_post for broadcasting), so the agent must infer the boundary from the phrasing alone.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: owner-only mutation for assign_mode/master_prompt_approval/claim_mode/claim_ttl_min versus unrestricted lead/my_strengths, and a stated default for auto_respond. It does not say what happens on permission failure or whether changes are reversible, so it is not complete.

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 opening sentence is well front-loaded, but everything after it is a single dense paragraph that interleaves permission rules, enum semantics, and personal-scope notes. The content mostly earns its place, yet a bulleted or grouped layout would make it far easier to parse.

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?

For an 8-parameter read/write settings tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the permission model, per-parameter semantics, and defaults, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. Only the shape of the `get` response is left implicit, a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning beyond the terse schema strings by explaining each enum branch (self/agent/hybrid, ask/block/warn, all/majority/owner) and the unit of claim_ttl_min. It omits guidance on whether parameters are all sent together or merged with existing values.

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?

States a specific verb pair and resource ("Read or change how the team works") and enumerates exactly which settings are covered, so an agent can distinguish it from action siblings like team_post, claim, or master_prompt. It does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Provides a real invocation gate ("when your user asks") and, more usefully, a permission model that tells the agent in advance which settings are owner-only, which anyone can set, and which are personal. It stops short of stating when not to call it or naming an alternative tool for team-wide rule changes.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does convey that this is a read-style "see" operation and that it tracks diffs ("what changed since you last looked"), implying stateful/cursor semantics. However it never states the safety profile explicitly (read-only, non-mutating, no side effects) nor output format or paging behavior, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for an annotation-free tool.

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, front-loaded with what the agent gets back followed by when to call it, with no filler. The content enumeration is somewhat long but each item earns its place by telling the agent what the snapshot contains.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does the necessary work of enumerating the returned items and the call timing. It is largely complete for a zero-parameter read tool, with only the safety/read-only framing and any size or freshness limits left implicit.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description rightly spends its words on returned content instead of inventing parameter semantics.

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?

States a specific verb-and-resource pair ("See what your team is doing right now") and enumerates the returned surface: presence, current task, master prompt state, your tasks, pending questions, and diffs. This clearly reads as a read-only snapshot, distinguishing it in kind from the action siblings (team_ask, team_post, team_reply), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives concrete invocation triggers: "Call it at the start of a session and before starting new work." That is clear when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to call it, so it does not reach the 5 tier.

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