Report each frame order's contracted cap vs billed draw-down vs remaining, for both hours and amount, with utilization percentage. Optionally filtered by customer and/or status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Filter by status: Open or Closed (optional). | |
| customer_id | No | Filter by customer id (optional). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It explains the output format (hours, amount, utilization) and implies a read-only report. However, it does not address authorization requirements, performance implications, or whether it includes archived data. The transparency is adequate for a simple retrieval tool but lacks depth.
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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core functionality and output, and the second handles filtering. Every phrase adds value with no wasted words.
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 adequately explains the return values (contracted cap, billed draw-down, remaining, utilization). It does not mention pagination or sorting, which might be needed for large datasets, but overall it covers the essential information for invoking the tool correctly.
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 provides descriptions for both parameters (status and customer_id), achieving 100% coverage. The description merely reiterates 'optionally filtered by customer and/or status' without adding new semantic details like format constraints or parameter interactions. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 reports frame order utilization details (contracted cap, billed draw-down, remaining) for both hours and amount, with percentage. The verb 'Report' and specific resource 'frame order utilization' make the purpose distinct from sibling tools like 'get_resource_utilization'.
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 mentions optional filters by customer and status, which suggests when to use them, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_resource_utilization) or when not to use it. No exclusions or dependencies are noted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., create_time_report and log_time both create a single time entry with near-identical descriptions. There are also many similar getter/list tools that blur together, making it hard for an agent to select the right one.
Most tool names use snake_case, but verbs are inconsistent: 'list' vs 'get' for similar operations, 'manage' combines create/update/delete, and 'use_favorite' is an outlier. This pattern reduces predictability.
With 114 tools, the set is extremely large and far beyond a well-scoped server (typical 3-15). This overwhelms agents and suggests many tools could be consolidated or removed.
The tool surface covers a broad domain including customers, projects, tasks, time tracking, invoicing, and user management, but there are gaps like no list_users or direct user listing, and some operations seem redundant rather than filling missing functionality.