get_focus_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the two possible output types (heatmap and distribution) with their formats, which adds behavioral transparency. It also mentions auth V2. It doesn't describe side effects or rate limits, but the tool is inherently read-only, making this omission minor.

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: a single sentence introducing purpose, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and the use of bold headers improves readability without unnecessary length.

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 no output schema, the description provides complete return type structures for both stat_type options. It also includes category, auth requirement, and a related tool. For a simple stats retrieval tool, this covers all necessary context.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must and does compensate fully. It explains from_date and to_date with format examples (YYYYMMDD) and specifies that stat_type accepts 'heatmap' or 'distribution', adding meaning beyond the schema's property names and types.

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 'Get focus/pomodoro statistics for a date range.' It specifies the resource (focus/pomodoro statistics) and action (get), and distinguishes from sibling get_productivity_stats by explicitly naming it as a related tool.

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 for when to use the tool (retrieving focus stats for a date range) and mentions a related alternative (get_productivity_stats). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide exclusion criteria, but the context is sufficient for most use cases.

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