get_project_heatmap

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only says 'heatmap' without specifying what data it contains, side effects, or if read-only. Lacks details on output scope.

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 plus parameter list, very concise and front-loaded. However, could be more structured or include brief usage guidance.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed. But description lacks context about what the heatmap represents (e.g., hours, availability) and when to use this vs similar heatmap tools.

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 0%, but description adds meaning by explaining each parameter (e.g., scale options 'daily' or 'weekly', date format YYYY-MM-DD). Adds value beyond bare schema.

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?

Description clearly states it returns a scheduling heatmap for a Forecast project. Verb 'Get' and resource specification are explicit, differentiating from sibling tools like get_person_heatmap.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied by name and parameter context, but with many siblings, guidance would help.

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