activitywatch_list_buckets

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 it's a list operation with optional filtering, implying it's likely read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't confirm this or address other behavioral aspects like permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what 'includeData' entails. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List all ActivityWatch buckets') and adds a concise modifier ('with optional type filtering'). There is no wasted verbiage, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic action and hints at filtering, but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, or output expectations. Without annotations or output schema, the agent must infer behavior from the description alone, which is insufficient for confident tool selection in varied scenarios.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('type' for filtering and 'includeData' for including bucket data). The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'optional type filtering,' which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional context like example types or implications of including data. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what's structured.

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 action ('List all ActivityWatch buckets') and resource ('ActivityWatch buckets'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'activitywatch_get_events' by focusing on buckets rather than events, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other bucket-related tools (none exist in the sibling list). The optional filtering aspect adds specificity beyond a basic list operation.

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 mentions optional type filtering but doesn't explain scenarios where filtering is beneficial or when to choose this over other tools like 'activitywatch_query_examples' or 'activitywatch_run_query' for bucket-related tasks. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual recommendations provided.

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