get_multi_team_pulse

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses parallelization via asyncio.gather, failure handling (failed boards listed but don't kill), output structure (aggregate + per-board summaries), and parameter default differences, leaving minimal behavioral uncertainty.

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 the purpose, then efficiently explains parallelism and output, followed by a clear parameter list. While slightly verbose, all sentences add value and the structure is logical.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description thoroughly covers input semantics, output format, error handling, and performance characteristics, making it fully actionable for an AI agent.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the tool description provides detailed meaning for each of the 8 parameters, including type, default, and format options (e.g., 'boards: comma-separated, partial match', 'format: report or json'), fully compensating for the schema gap.

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 'Parallel pulse across multiple boards with aggregated org-wide view' and explicitly references the sibling tool `get_team_pulse` for comparison, making the purpose distinct and unambiguous.

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 explains the parallel execution benefit, failure tolerance, and default limit difference, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over `get_team_pulse` or other tools. However, it provides sufficient context for decision-making.

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