get_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral info. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, safe, or requires authentication (api_key in schema suggests auth but not stated). The word 'generate' could imply creation, but likely it's a computation. This lack of clarity is a significant gap.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and every part adds value. No redundant or vague phrases.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks behavioral transparency and usage guidelines beyond basic purpose. For a tool with 3 parameters and no required fields, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps in auth and safety context.

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%, meaning no parameters are described in the schema. The description only adds meaning to the 'project' parameter (optional filter). It does not explain 'days' (what range, default 7) or 'api_key' (required? purpose). With 0% coverage, the description should compensate but only partially does.

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 that the tool generates a time report with optional project filtering and shows totals per project and per day. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_entries, start_timer, and stop_timer, which perform different functions.

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?

Description explains when to use the tool (to generate a time report) and mentions optional project filtering. However, it does not explicitly exclude use cases or provide direct alternatives, though sibling names offer implicit guidance.

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