get-productivity-stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is clearly safe. The description adds value by detailing the returned data (completion breakdowns, streaks, karma), which helps the agent understand what to expect beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and specific data returned. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words, achieving optimal conciseness.

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 an output schema present (as per context), the description does not need to explain return values. It lists the key data types, and since there are no parameters, the description is fully complete for an agent to understand tool behavior.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% and the description need not add parameter info. The baseline is 4, and the description does not include any parameter details, which is appropriate.

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 retrieves comprehensive productivity statistics, listing specific metrics (daily/weekly completion breakdowns, goal streaks, karma score/trends, historical karma). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get-project-activity-stats' and 'get-project-health' by focusing on personal productivity rather than project-specific data.

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 states it is 'useful for productivity analysis and tracking goal progress,' giving a clear use case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives such as 'find-goals' or 'find-tasks-by-date,' leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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