Runn: person hours report (by day)

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

There are no annotations, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the core behavior (by-day plan vs actual hours) and that it's a GET request, but it does not mention pagination behavior, date range handling, or output format. It reveals basic purpose but omits operational nuances.

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 a single concise sentence that includes the endpoint path, making it front-loaded and free of fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple report tool, though it could have included more guidance without becoming verbose.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, pagination details, or how this report differs from similar project/hour reports. The presence of 6 parameters, including pagination controls, demands more context than provided.

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 50%, and the description adds no parameter details beyond what the schema already provides. The path indicates personId is the main identifier, but the description does not explain the semantics of startDate/endDate, cursor, or fetchAll. It fails to compensate for the gaps in schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'By-day plan-vs-actual hours for a person' with an explicit HTTP GET endpoint. It identifies the resource (person hours) and the context (by-day plan vs actual), distinguishing it from sibling tools like runn_report_hours_project.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or sibling tools (e.g., 'for project hours use runn_report_hours_project'). The description only states what it does, not when it should be chosen.

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