get_today_summary

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 describes what the tool returns (productivity pulse, total time, breakdowns, percentages), which adds useful context beyond the input schema. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation, leaving gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation 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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the main purpose and followed by a clear list of return values. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without waste, making it highly efficient.

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's complexity (simple read operation), 0 parameters, and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the return values in detail, which compensates for the lack of annotations. However, it could be more complete by addressing potential behavioral aspects like data freshness or limitations, but the output schema likely covers return structure, so it's not a critical gap.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it doesn't introduce any confusion, making this appropriate for a no-param tool.

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 with the verb 'Get' and resource 'today's complete RescueTime productivity summary.' It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'today's complete' summary rather than activity data, category breakdowns, hourly productivity, or trends. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with each sibling tool, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 clear context with 'This is the recommended daily check-in tool,' which indicates when to use it. It implies usage for daily productivity overviews but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like the sibling tools for more specific data, so it falls short of a 5.

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