generate_standup_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does so well by disclosing the data sources and scope: activity feed events plus current overdue and stalled work. It does not explicitly address side effects or permissions, but as a read-only report generator, the described behavior is sufficiently transparent.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: the first states the outcome, the second details the inputs and intended use. No filler or repetition.

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 purpose, input signals, and output use case, and an output schema exists so return values are covered. However, with no annotations and no parameter descriptions, details like how to identify the board and what window_days controls are left underspecified.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only vaguely references 'a board' and 'recently'. It never explicitly explains the board parameter format or the window_days semantics, defaults, or valid range, leaving the agent to infer too much.

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?

States a specific verb ('Summarise') with a clear resource ('what actually happened on a board recently') and a concrete synthesis activity: combining card movements, new cards, comments, overdue work, and stalled work. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like list_cards or analyze_board_health on intent.

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?

Provides clear usage context: the output is suitable for a standup update or weekly status note. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the described purpose is strong enough to guide an agent.

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