Action Item Review

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: 'It shows evidence only and lets you judge what counts as done' — indicating a read-only, non-judgmental analysis. It also clarifies that the tool attaches data, implying no mutation or destructive actions, which is useful transparency.

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 four sentences, reasonably concise. The first sentence is slightly jargony, but the second directly explains the mechanism. The third sentence ('single proven lever') is somewhat promotional yet not excessive. Front-loading is adequate.

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 tool has 3 params, no required fields, no output schema. The description explains the core workflow (attach current sprint data to previous actions) and the output's nature ('shows evidence only'). It lacks specifics on what 'relevant data' includes, but the overall context is sufficiently conveyed for a simple 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%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds context by tying 'previous retro's action items' to the previousActions param and 'THIS sprint' to sprintId, but does not provide additional syntactic or semantic detail 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Give the previous retro's action items and it attaches THIS sprint's relevant data to each' — a specific verb-resource pair. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like retro_metrics or retro_brief by focusing on action-item evidence and follow-through.

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 context ('Reviewing prior actions is the single proven lever on retro follow-through') but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use it. It offers a strong rationale but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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