get_productivity_stats

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 lists return fields and mentions auth version (V2), but does not disclose whether the data is real-time or cached, nor any side effects. For a read-only stats tool, the description offers basic transparency but lacks depth.

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 extremely concise: a one-line purpose, followed by structured metadata lines (category, auth, related, returns). Every sentence is informative and earns its place. 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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides a fairly complete picture by listing all return fields and authentication hint. However, it does not specify the user scope (e.g., 'for the authenticated user') or whether the stats are date-constrained beyond the time periods listed, leaving slight ambiguity.

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 no parameters (0) with 100% coverage, so the description need not explain parameters. It adds value by enumerating return fields, which compensates for the lack of output schema.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'productivity statistics', and lists specific return fields (score, level, streaks, completion counts). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_focus_stats and get_completed_tasks by itemizing the exact outputs.

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 includes a '[Related: ...]' line that lists sibling tools (get_user_status, get_completed_tasks, get_focus_stats), providing context for when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the relation hints at differentiation.

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