Focus board

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds useful context beyond that: the scope spans every repo, and the payload includes recent agent activity, which tells the agent what kind of state it is observing. It does not discuss freshness or update timing, which would have made it a 5.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads what the tool returns, the second covers usage and the no-argument constraint. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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, so the description must characterize the return value, and it does: a short cross-repo list plus recent agent activity. Combined with annotations covering safety and an empty, fully-described schema, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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?

With zero parameters the baseline is 4, and the schema is an empty object that already conveys this. The sentence 'Takes no arguments' is mildly redundant but confirms to the agent that no scoping or filtering input is possible, which is a meaningful behavioral constraint.

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 user's cross-repo focus board) and specifies its contents: a short list of cross-repo work items plus recent agent activity. That is more specific than a restatement of the name 'read_board'. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with write_board, so the read-vs-write distinction relies on the names rather than the prose.

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 gives concrete when-to-use guidance: 'Use with `launchpad` when planning a day or picking up where they left off,' naming a companion tool and the situations that select it. There is no explicit when-not-to-use clause or exclusion pointing to `standup`, `overview`, or `changes` as alternatives.

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