get_stuck_handoffs

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It details the algorithm step-by-step, explains that it surfaces items with fresh comments but no state change, and describes output grouping. This provides thorough behavioral transparency.

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 well-structured: a concise one-liner, then differentiation from siblings, algorithm details, output grouping, and parameter list. It is front-loaded with key information and 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?

For a tool with algorithmic complexity (6 parameters, output grouping), the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavior, parameters, and output format. The existence of an output schema (even if not shown) reduces burden, and the description adds all necessary 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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by listing all six parameters with meaningful descriptions (e.g., 'board_name: Board name (partial match), ID, or URL'). This adds essential context beyond the bare schema types and defaults.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Tasks that crossed a team boundary and haven't moved since.' It uses a specific verb-resource combination and immediately distinguishes itself from sibling tools get_handoff_snapshot and track_cross_dept_journey, making its 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 explicitly tells when to use this tool versus alternatives by naming get_handoff_snapshot and track_cross_dept_journey and explaining their differences. It also outlines the algorithm and output grouping, providing clear context for appropriate use.

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