deadline_scorecard

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context by defining per-issue versus cumulative compliance, the meaning of missed_after_extension, and how strict mode affects approval counting. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies edge-case semantics.

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 opens with a concise summary, then provides a clear list of parameter definitions with examples. Every sentence adds value; no filler or redundancy. The structure is easy to scan and understand.

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 read-only analytical tool with six parameters and an output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, calculation semantics, and all parameter meanings. No critical information is missing, and the presence of an output schema means return values need not be restated.

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?

Even though schema description coverage is 0%, the description thoroughly explains every parameter: quarter format and default, user filtering, projects as comma-separated shortnames, strict mode meaning, exclude_standups, and instance optionality. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 identifies the tool's function as a per-assignee deadline compliance rollup for a calendar quarter. It distinguishes itself from cumulative tracking by specifying per-issue compliance and explaining the 'missed_after_extension' condition. This is specific enough to differentiate from sibling tools like get_deadline_impact.

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 usage for deadline compliance reporting but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or conditions that would route an agent away from this tool. The parameter explanations provide context but not comparative usage guidance.

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