Retro Brief

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

The description discloses that every line is backed by specific data sources (metric, ticket, PR, Slack thread), frames the output around process not individuals, and flags recurring themes. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond the basic generation, especially given no annotations are provided.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and key behavioral characteristics. Every sentence provides substantive information with no wasted words.

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 outlines the four sections of the retrospective and notes data grounding and thematic flagging, effectively explaining the expected output despite the absence of an output schema. Minor details like output format are not specified, but overall it is suitably complete for a tool with only two optional parameters.

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 input schema already documents both optional parameters with clear descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific information 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 states the tool generates a data-grounded sprint retrospective with four named sections (What went well, What did not, Action items, Discussion prompts). It distinguishes from sibling tools by combining metrics, prompts, and action items into a single comprehensive brief.

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 provides clear context for the tool's default behavior (most recently closed sprint) and output scope, but does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios. The sibling tool list suggests narrower tools exist, but the description doesn't reference them.

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