get_standup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool fetches and formats activity, but lacks details on authentication requirements (beyond parameter hints), rate limits, error handling, or side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not stated.

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, well-formed sentence that effectively conveys the tool's purpose. It is concise and front-loaded, though minor rephrasing could improve scanability.

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 basic function but lacks details on output format, error scenarios, and explicit usage guidelines compared to siblings. Given the absence of an output schema, the description should better explain what the standup report looks like.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds the context of 'format as a standup report', which is not in the schema, but does not provide additional semantics for individual parameters beyond what the schema already offers.

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?

Description clearly states the tool fetches user's GitHub activity for a standup report, listing specific items (commits, PRs, reviews, issues). The verb 'fetch' and resource 'your GitHub activity' are specific, and the scope (personal) helps distinguish from sibling tools like get_repo_pulse (repo-level) and get_standup_multi (multi-user).

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 implies usage for personal standup reports but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (get_repo_pulse, get_standup_multi). No when-not or prerequisite conditions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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