Standup Draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explicitly states 'Only reports observed activity; never invents work,' which is a strong transparency guarantee against hallucinated content. It also discloses the default window behavior (Monday reaches back across the weekend) and the output structure (Yesterday/Today/Blockers grouped by work item). These are valuable beyond what the schema provides.

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 three well-structured sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose, then details output format and behavioral constraints. Every sentence earns its place.

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 covers the essential context: what the tool does, what it returns, and default behavior. Since there is no output schema, the description appropriately summarizes the return format. It omits potential edge cases (e.g., no activity found, missing integrations), but for a straightforward standup generator, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 provides complete descriptions for both parameters ('days' and 'since'), including default behavior. The description adds minimal extra meaning about the parameters themselves; the comment about the default window is corroborated by the schema, not supplementary. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline 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 purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Generate your daily standup' from real activity. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing daily frequency, grouping by work item not tool, and returning concrete deltas. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 on when to use the tool: to generate a daily standup from observed activity. It implies the temporal scope ('Defaults to the last working day') and differentiates from weekly or broader summaries, but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. This is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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