Get Global Timesheet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description is fully consistent with them. The description adds significant non-obvious behavior beyond the annotations: the API returns 400 without required params, empty array filters cause 400, the handler joins arrays with commas internally, author_id/author_name are enriched only when the author is the API caller, and limit is capped at 200.

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?

Four dense sentences with zero filler. Purpose is front-loaded, followed by required params, filter mechanics, error conditions, sibling routing, and return format. Every sentence earns its place, and the total length is justified given the tool has 12 parameters and several non-obvious behaviors.

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 12 parameters, a 100%-covered schema, and no output schema, the description covers most essentials: purpose, required params and their failure modes, filter semantics, alternatives, and the return shape (array of timelog objects with an enrichment caveat). The main gap is that without an output schema, the individual timelog object fields are left unspecified, and the verbosity parameter's effect on output is only hinted at in the schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value: it explains that from/to are required with a specific 400 failure mode, that filters must be passed as JSON arrays and the handler joins them with commas, that empty arrays are skipped (and would 400), and clarifies the limit cap. These are behavioral semantics the schema alone does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the global timesheet across cards and users') plus a plain-language example of the answer it provides. It names the exact scope (global, date range) and clearly differentiates from siblings by naming kaiten_get_user_timelogs and kaiten_get_card_timelogs as the per-user/per-card alternatives.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'For per-user timelogs prefer kaiten_get_user_timelogs; for per-card prefer kaiten_get_card_timelogs.' It also warns about failure conditions (400 without from/to, 400 on empty filters), which guides correct invocation.

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