Pb Flow Metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive behavior, and open-world access, so the safety profile is known. The description adds little behavioral context beyond the metrics themselves, saying nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or how the two identifier modes behave differently.

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 a single compact sentence with no wasted words, and the metric list is front-loaded. Its terseness becomes under-specification rather than conciseness in the parameter portion, but the structure itself is efficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be in the description, and annotations cover safety behavior. However, with three parameters and no schema descriptions, the description leaves key input semantics and usage distinctions incomplete.

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 carry parameter meaning. It mentions plan_id and board_link but does not explain their formats, whether they are mutually exclusive, which takes precedence, or what happens when both are omitted; window_days is not mentioned at all.

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 names the specific metrics returned — throughput, cycle time P50/P85, and aging work — so an agent can identify the tool's purpose. It is not a generic restatement of the name, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like pb_critical_path or pb_workload.

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 use when flow metrics are needed and notes that the caller should supply either plan_id or board_link. It does not explain when to choose this over sibling tools such as pb_critical_path, pb_workload, or pb_forecast, nor does it state exclusions.

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