Retro Metrics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scope (closed sprint, comparison with prior sprint) and the output content (detailed metrics list). It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but that is strongly implied by the nature of metrics retrieval.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose with a dense but relevant list of metrics; the second adds context. Every phrase contributes, though the list could be seen as slightly exhaustive.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description does well to enumerate the returned metrics and establish the comparison baseline. It does not explain parameter defaults or prerequisites, but the schema fills that gap. Overall, it gives a clear picture of what the tool offers.

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%, with both parameters clearly described. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 specifies the tool's function as retrieving quantitative metrics for a retro on the closed sprint, enumerating specific measurements. It distinguishes itself from siblings by calling itself 'the evidence base the brief draws from', implying a distinct data-provision role.

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 phrase 'evidence base the brief draws from' provides clear context for when to use this tool—when raw numbers are needed for a retro. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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