detect_bottlenecks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose an important trait: the pressure score is a 'crude volume-plus-age heuristic' and is returned with its own formula so it can be questioned. This is useful epistemic context beyond the basic function, though it does not discuss read-only semantics, permissions, or data freshness.

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?

Two succinct sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the heuristic caveat placed second. Every sentence adds either functional or interpretive value; there is no 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 output schema presumably covers the return details, so the description does not need to. But the board parameter remains ambiguous, and 'non-done lists' is not formally defined. For a single-parameter analysis tool this is adequate but leaves an agent guessing on invocation details.

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 has a single 'board' parameter with 0% documentation coverage, and the description never explains what board value is expected (ID, name, or URL) or how it should be formatted. Because the schema provides no meaning, the description needed to compensate and did not.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Rank the non-done lists by how much work is piling up and ageing inside them.' It clearly communicates the tool's analytical function and distinguishes it from generic card/list tools, though it does not explicitly contrast it with the similar-sounding analyze_board_health sibling.

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?

Usage is implied from the verb 'Rank' — the tool is for identifying bottleneck lists on a board. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no statement of when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer suitability.

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