generate_standup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool generates content and returns a StandupReport dictionary, but lacks details on how it operates: e.g., where it sources data from (tasks, notes?), whether it requires authentication, if it's read-only or modifies data, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 and front-loaded, with two sentences: the first states the purpose and output structure, the second specifies the return type. There's no fluff, and every sentence adds value. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for the three sections), but it's efficient overall.

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 complexity (generative, no parameters) and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and the return format, but lacks context on data sources, behavioral traits, or usage guidelines. With no annotations and siblings present, it should do more to be fully complete, but the output schema reduces the need to detail return values.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description appropriately doesn't waste space on non-existent parameters. It focuses on the tool's output instead, which is sufficient given the empty input schema.

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: '自动生成每日站会内容：昨日完成 / 今日计划 / 阻塞项' (Automatically generate daily standup content: yesterday's completed items / today's plan / blockers). It specifies the verb 'generate' and the resource 'daily standup content' with three distinct sections. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_weekly_review', which serves a similar purpose but for a different timeframe.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing existing tasks or notes), context (e.g., time of day), or exclusions (e.g., when data is unavailable). With siblings like 'get_today_tasks' or 'generate_weekly_review', there's no indication of how this tool complements or differs from them in usage scenarios.

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