Burndown Chart

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

The description adds behavioral context by specifying the outputs (time-series data, remaining scope, estimated completion date) beyond the annotations' read-only and non-destructive hints. However, it lacks details like whether the data is computed on the fly or whether the estimated date has caveats, but given the annotations cover safety, this is acceptable.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core function and outputs. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what it returns (time-series data, remaining scope, estimated completion date). It is complete enough for a simple read-only analytics tool, though it could mention the effect of the 'days' parameter on the output timeframe, which is partially covered by schema.

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 for both parameters ('days' and 'project'), so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The baseline score of 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameters.

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's purpose: generating burndown chart time-series data, remaining scope, and estimated completion date. It uses a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('burndown chart time-series data'), which distinguishes it from sibling analytics tools like velocity_analytics or get_project_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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case from the name and description alone.

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