Runn: project totals report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP method (GET), the return shape (a single totals object), and explicitly notes the absence of pagination. However, it does not mention authentication, error behavior, or the specific fields in the totals object, leaving gaps in transparency.

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, tightly packed sentence that includes the core function, the endpoint, and the return characteristic (no pagination). There is no wasted wording, and it is immediately front-loaded with the purpose.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and return shape but omits usage context and the structure of the totals object. It is minimally viable for an agent to invoke, but it lacks details about when to use it and what fields are returned.

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 only provides an integer type for projectId with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by embedding the parameter in the endpoint path (projects/{id}), indicating it is the project's ID. This adds semantic meaning beyond the schema, though it does not explain how to obtain or format the ID.

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 reports aggregated plan/actual minutes for a project, with the specific endpoint GET /reports/totals/projects/{id}. It identifies the resource (project) and the action (report totals). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling runn_report_hours_project, so it misses the top tier.

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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like runn_report_hours_project or runn_get_project. It only states what it returns, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context without explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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