Get team resource utilization summary showing target hours, actual hours, billable hours, and utilization percentage for the organization
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_date | Yes | End date for the utilization period (ISO 8601 format, e.g. 2026-01-31) | |
| start_date | Yes | Start date for the utilization period (ISO 8601 format, e.g. 2026-01-01) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the output fields but does not clarify read-only nature, aggregation scope (e.g., per team vs. whole org), timezone handling, or whether historical data is included. This leaves significant ambiguity.
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?
Single sentence, 18 words, no filler. Every word adds value. Front-loaded with the key action and output summary. Excellent conciseness.
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?
No output schema exists, so description must explain return value. It lists key fields (target hours, actual hours, billable hours, utilization percentage) but omits aggregation level (team/project?) and format. Adequate but not fully complete for a query tool.
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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described in schema. The description mentions date range implicitly but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since description does not compensate for any missing parameter information.
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 fetches a resource utilization summary with specific fields (target, actual, billable hours, percentage). The tool name itself is a strong indicator, and the description adds enough detail to distinguish from similar tools like get_hours_summary, although it does not explicitly differentiate.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_hours_summary or get_frame_order_utilization. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The description implicitly suggests it is for overview, but lacks explicit direction.
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.