redmine_time_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well on the non-obvious parts: it discloses the max_entries cap default of 1000 and that hitting it sets truncated: true, and clarifies that 'to' is inclusive and 0 means no filter. It stops short of stating this is a read-only operation or any permission/rate-limit requirements.

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?

Front-loaded one-line summary followed by compact Args sections; every line carries information. The Returns line is largely redundant with the existing output schema, which keeps it from a 5.

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 6-parameter aggregation tool with no annotations, all inputs, defaults, the filter sentinel, and the truncation edge case are covered, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. Only missing piece is any statement about read-only behavior or access requirements.

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% (only titles and defaults), so the description must compensate and it does: it gives the date format and inclusivity, the 0-means-no-filter sentinel for both ID params, the enumerated group_by values with the default, and the cap semantics plus truncation signal.

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 (aggregate) and resource (time entries) plus the scope (date range, grouped by dimension), which cleanly separates it from redmine_list_time_entries or redmine_today_time_entries. It never names those siblings, so differentiation must be inferred from the word 'aggregate'.

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?

Usage is implied by the aggregation framing (use this when you want totals grouped by a dimension rather than raw entries), but there is no explicit 'use X instead of Y' routing against the many time-entry siblings, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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