Discussion Prompts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It adds useful context by stating the prompts are grounded in real anomalies and framed as questions, not verdicts. However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or output structure, which prevents a higher score.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences that deliver the core purpose immediately and include only valuable details. Every phrase earns its place without unnecessary filler.

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 only two optional parameters and no output schema, and the description adequately conveys that the output is a set of open questions for discussion. It could specify quantity or format more precisely, but for this simple tool the description is largely sufficient.

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?

The schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not add any additional meaning or guidance for boardId or sprintId beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies the tool as providing open discussion questions for a retro board, grounded in real anomalies from the closed sprint. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing open-ended questions rather than metrics, summaries, or action items, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'generates' or 'lists.'

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 gives clear context for use: it is for the retro board and intended to start conversation, not to pass verdicts. It implies when this tool is appropriate and differentiates from siblings, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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