Focus Time Distribution

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the basic function without mentioning return format, date range inclusivity, data granularity, or any auth requirements. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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?

A single sentence of 14 words immediately states the tool's purpose. No filler or repeated information, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema), but without annotations or an output schema, the description should clarify what the distribution looks like (e.g., counts vs. percentages) or any behavioral details. It doesn't, leaving the agent to guess the output structure.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters (from/to as start/end dates with format YYYY-MM-DD), so coverage is 100%. The description adds the concept of a 'date range' but no additional semantic detail beyond the schema definitions.

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?

The description uses the verb 'Get' with a specific resource: focus time distributed across tags/categories. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_focus_heatmap (heatmap) or get_tags (list tags), and the date range scope is explicit.

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 siblings like get_focus_heatmap or get_productivity_stats. The intended use case is only implied by the description itself; there are no exclusions or alternative tool names mentioned.

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