clokio_get_employee_task_stats

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the stale_days threshold with default and range, and the multi-assignee double-counting rule. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the tool's result, with no filler. The counting caveat is a compact one-liner and every sentence adds value.

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?

For a two-parameter, read-only stats tool, the description covers the returned count categories, the stale threshold behavior, and a potentially surprising counting rule. It is slightly thin on defining 'past_due' and the exact output shape, but sufficient for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains stale_days (default 7, range 1-365) and the single-employee scope, though it does not explicitly define employee_code as the employee identifier; the required field name makes that inferable.

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?

Opens with a precise noun phrase: 'One employee's open / delayed_from_open / past_due task counts,' specifying both the entity and the exact metrics returned. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like clokio_list_tasks (raw task records) and clokio_attendance_for_employee (attendance data).

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 implies single-employee, aggregate-count usage but never states when to prefer this over list_tasks, get_task, or attendance siblings, nor does it give exclusions. An agent must infer that this is for task-status statistics rather than raw task details.

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