get_attention_board

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action 'Reconstruct', implying a read operation, but does not explicitly mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what the response contains. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose; the second provides a critical discovery hint. Information is front-loaded and efficient.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It leaves include_green unexplained and does not detail the output structure (though an output schema exists). The agent would need to guess parameter semantics, making it inadequate for confident invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains team_id via the get_workspace_detail hint and mentions 'target' in the action, but does not clarify valid target values or the meaning of include_green. Only two of three parameters are touched, and without schema descriptions the agent lacks full understanding.

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 states a specific action ('Reconstruct Attention') and scope ('for one exact team ID and target'), which is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like get_team_board. The term 'Attention' is domain-specific but understandable in context. Slight ambiguity remains about what 'Attention' precisely refers to, but the verb+resource is present.

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 clear context on how to obtain the required team_id by directing to get_workspace_detail, which is a helpful prerequisite. However, it does not mention when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., get_team_board) or any exclusion criteria. It gives a clear usage hint but no alternatives.

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