Blocker Scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple action by explaining the detection mechanism: 'Detects blockers from signals, not self-report' and lists specific signal types (explicit language, PRs awaiting review, unmoved tickets, help requests). It also mentions 'ranked by severity,' indicating output ordering. While it does not explicitly state side effects, the nature of a scan tool implies read-only behavior, and the description provides meaningful insight into how the tool operates.

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: the first delivers the primary purpose and scope, the second explains the detection methodology. It is concise, front-loaded, and every phrase adds value. No unnecessary filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity—scanning four platforms with multiple signal types and no output schema—the description provides a clear overview of what it does and how it detects blockers. It states the result is ranked by severity, which gives an expectation of the output structure. However, it does not detail the exact format of the returned blockers (e.g., grouping by source, severity levels, or links), so a bit more information would enhance completeness.

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%, with both 'days' and 'since' well-documented in the input schema. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it merely references the default window in a way that mirrors the schema. Since the schema carries the full burden, a 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's function: 'Surface what is blocking you across GitHub, Jira, Linear, and Slack, ranked by severity.' This is a specific verb+resource+scope that distinguishes it from sibling tools like weekly_summary or activity_digest, which likely provide general summaries rather than blocker-specific information. The signal-based detection further clarifies its unique positioning.

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 when to use this tool: when you need to identify blockers across multiple platforms, especially via signals rather than self-report. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the focused purpose ('what is blocking you') provides clear context. The inclusion of detection signals gives additional guidance on the tool's suitability for a given situation.

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