wetrack_trigger_sprint_burndown_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the restricted 'System/Admin' nature, the primary side effect (capturing a burndown snapshot of remaining scope), and a non-obvious authorization behavior (WETRACK_AUTH_KEY, not user JWT). It does not detail idempotency or effects of repeated manual runs, but the core behavioral profile is clearly conveyed.

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 front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage context and an Args/Note block. Every sentence adds information; there is no filler or repetition of schema data.

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?

For a simple one-parameter trigger with an output schema already present, the description covers purpose, typical invocation pattern, manual use cases, and auth requirements. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether and how to call it is missing.

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 is bare (0% description coverage), so the description's Args block is essential. It explains that auth_key is the system auth key from .env, optional with environment-variable fallback, and explicitly warns that the regular user JWT is invalid.

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?

Description opens with '[System/Admin] Snapshot today's remaining scope for every active sprint,' naming a specific verb, resource, and scope. The sibling list contains many getters and only one other trigger (trigger_sla_check), and this description unambiguously identifies this tool as the burndown snapshot trigger.

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?

It states the tool is 'Normally called by an automated daily scheduler' and that manual invocation is for 'testing or to backfill a missed snapshot,' giving clear when-to-use context. It also distinguishes this from routine user-invoked operations by highlighting the system auth key requirement.

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