Runn: project hours report (by day)

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: 'billableMinutes/totalMinutes use actuals where present, else assignments.' However, no annotations are present, and the description does not state whether the operation is read-only, how pagination behaves, or what happens with missing dates. It provides some transparency but not comprehensive coverage.

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?

Two sentences, each carrying distinct value: the first states the purpose and endpoint, the second clarifies the data fallback logic. No redundant 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the return structure and parameter interplay. It only mentions two output fields and leaves date handling and pagination behavior unspecified. It is inadequate for a 6-parameter tool.

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 only 50% (limit, cursor, fetchAll have descriptions; projectId, startDate, endDate do not). The description adds no parameter explanations, such as the meaning or constraints of startDate/endDate. It does not compensate for the schema gaps.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'By-day plan-vs-actual hours for a project' with the endpoint. This clearly distinguishes from sibling report tools like runn_report_totals_project (totals) and runn_report_hours_person (person-level).

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that runn_report_totals_project should be used for aggregated totals or runn_report_hours_person for person-level reports. The usage context is implied only.

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