thetacog_overview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses that the tool reads git activity, groups commits, filters auto-bumps, and computes the overview. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or discuss potential side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The mention of a 'Spin-up DAG' hints at internal orchestration but lacks clarity.

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 informative but somewhat verbose, detailing the internal algorithm and data structures beyond just the tool's purpose. While it front-loads the main function, the length could be reduced for better conciseness. Every sentence adds value, but it could be tightened without losing essential information.

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 has only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context by explaining the output fields (just_completed, next_up, grid) and the grouping logic. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and return value without needing a separate output schema.

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 input schema already describes both parameters (days_back, repo_root) with 100% coverage. The description adds minimal new semantic meaning beyond the schema, only reiterating the default for days_back and the optional nature of repo_root. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 that the tool provides a live overview of 3 recent and 3 upcoming work items based on real git activity. It specifies the output fields (just_completed, next_up, grid_12x12_colored_cells) and differentiates itself from sibling tools like thetacog-detect or thetacog-export by focusing on a summary overview.

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 the tool is used for getting an overview of recent and upcoming commits, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like thetacog-detect or thetacog-status. No specific context or exclusions are provided, leaving usage guidance somewhat implied.

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