Get work packet

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: the tool assembles a brief without modifying data, and it instructs to read files rather than dump them. This clarifies the tool's behavior beyond annotations, though no details on auth or rate limits are given, which is acceptable given the read-only nature.

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 concise: two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the action and list of content, the second adds a critical behavioral instruction. Every sentence 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 the tool's low complexity, 2 required parameters, and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (the brief components) and its purpose. It could be more explicit about the return format, but the annotation (readOnlyHint) and instruction to read files cover most needs. The description is almost complete for the tool's context.

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. While the parameter names ('ticket' and 'project') are self-explanatory and the description provides context about what the tool does with them (e.g., 'for one ticket', 'project prompt'), it does not explicitly define each parameter's semantic role or expected format. This leaves room for ambiguity.

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 uses a specific verb 'assemble' and resource 'focused brief for one ticket', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that list or get individual items. It details the contents: scope, linked-issue details, code location, etc., making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 states 'before you work it', indicating when to use the tool. It also gives an instruction to read the files instead of dumping them. However, no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, though the context is clear.

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