Get Time Summary

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds that it returns billable and non-billable hours, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like authorization needs or rate limits, which is acceptable given 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 duplicated in Spanish, which adds unnecessary length without value for an English-preferring agent. The English portion is reasonably front-loaded but could be more concise by omitting the duplicate.

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?

The description covers the core functionality and return fields, but omits mention of projectId and groupBy parameters. However, since an output schema exists, the return structure is documented elsewhere. Overall, adequate but with minor gaps.

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 coverage is 100% and the description restates date range and user ID filtering, but does not add extra meaning for projectId or groupBy. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents parameters.

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 returns an aggregated time tracking summary for a workspace or specific team member, listing specific fields (total hours, billable, etc.) and distinguishing from siblings like get_time_entry or list_time_entries.

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 implies usage for aggregated summaries filtered by date and user, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling tools (e.g., list_time_entries for raw entries) or when not to use it.

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