get-productivity-stats

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it specifies the tool reports counts, streaks, and karma only, never the tasks themselves. This is valuable because it clarifies the output scope. The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well-covered. The description could add more about the output structure, but the output schema exists to cover that.

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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose, then lists the specific data types, and ends with a clear exclusion and pointer to an alternative. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has zero parameters, a rich output schema, and strong annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use an alternative. The output schema handles return value details, so the description doesn't need to enumerate them.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously true). The description adds value by explaining what the tool returns (daily/weekly breakdowns, streaks, karma trends), which is the main semantic content. Since there are no parameters to document, a baseline of 4 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's purpose: retrieving comprehensive productivity statistics including daily/weekly completion breakdowns, goal streaks, karma score and trends, and historical karma data. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it reports counts, streaks, and karma only, never tasks themselves, and directs users to find-activity for task-level details.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: it is useful for productivity analysis and tracking goal progress, and it explicitly states when NOT to use it (for 'what did I complete' queries, use find-activity instead). This clear differentiation from the sibling tool find-activity is excellent.

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