glama_daily_report

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

Annotations are empty, so description carries full burden. It describes generating a report, typical of a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state whether the tool is non-destructive or has side effects. The precondition is useful, but more transparency about behavioral traits (e.g., read-only) is needed.

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 efficient with three sentences plus a list. It is front-loaded with purpose and contents, followed by usage guidelines. Each sentence earns its place, though the structure is slightly fragmented.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, contents, usage conditions, and preconditions. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly without needing additional context.

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% for the single parameter 'format', which already provides a clear description. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what is in the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 generates a daily fleet health report and lists its contents (grade distribution, recent changes, worst tools, stale repos). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly stating when not to use (for single repo details use glama_status).

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 explicitly states when to use ('once daily for comprehensive fleet Glama score overview'), when NOT to use ('for single repo details use glama_status'), and lists a precondition ('at least one refresh must have been run'). This provides excellent guidance for an agent.

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