Agent monitor (currently-running work)

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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: it's a snapshot sorted by recent activity, includes idle time and stalled flag. Annotations already mark it read-only; description adds context about the data returned. No contradictions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes all key elements without verbosity. Every word 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately describes the output fields (work-log activity, cumulative counts, idle time, stalled flag) and sorting. It could mention the format (list of tickets) but is otherwise complete for a read-only snapshot tool.

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 coverage is 67% (asOf and stallHours have descriptions, project does not). The description implicitly relates stallHours to the stalled flag and idle time, but does not explicitly explain each parameter (e.g., asOf, project). It adds some value beyond schema but not fully compensatory.

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 it provides a snapshot of the board's currently-running work (In Progress tickets) with specific fields like work-log activity, additions/deletions/tokens, idle time, and stalled flag. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_board, get_task, and get_work_log by focusing on a filtered, activity-sorted view.

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 explicitly says 'Use it to see what's underway and catch stuck tickets,' providing a clear use case. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives, the purpose is well-defined.

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