activitywatch_query_examples

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 the tool 'gets examples,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or involves any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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, clear sentence: 'Get examples of properly formatted queries for the ActivityWatch MCP server.' It is front-loaded with the core action ('Get examples') and specifies the context ('for the ActivityWatch MCP server'), with zero wasted words. This makes it highly efficient and easy for an agent to parse.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does but lacks behavioral details (e.g., response format, authentication needs) and usage guidelines relative to siblings. Without an output schema, it doesn't describe return values, which could hinder an agent's understanding of how to use the examples provided.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, as there are none. It appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without redundant parameter details, earning a high baseline score for parameter semantics in this context.

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's purpose: 'Get examples of properly formatted queries for the ActivityWatch MCP server.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('examples of properly formatted queries'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'activitywatch_run_query' or 'activitywatch_get_events,' which prevents a perfect score.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing to understand query syntax before using 'activitywatch_run_query'), exclusions, or contextual cues. Without such information, an agent might struggle to choose between this and sibling tools like 'activitywatch_run_query' or 'activitywatch_get_events.'

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