Calculate on-time, late, and missed scheduled activities by department and activity type, then save a CSV compliance summary to the Report folder for a given year.
Calcola, per reparto e tipo di attività, quante attività programmate sono state eseguite in tempo, in ritardo o non eseguite, e salva un CSV nella cartella Report.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| anno | Yes | Anno di riferimento |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does credit a real side effect — writing a CSV into the Report folder — which is the key behavioral fact, but it omits everything else: whether an existing file is overwritten, how the file is named (year?), what permissions or auth are required, and what the tool returns once the file is written.
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?
A single sentence with no wasted words: the computation is front-loaded and the output side effect (CSV in Report) is stated at the end. Nothing is repeated from the schema or title.
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?
For a simple one-parameter report generator this is adequate in purpose, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should say what comes back (file path? summary counts? success flag?) and whether re-running the same year overwrites the previous CSV. Those are the only real gaps for a tool this narrow.
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?
There is one parameter (anno) at 100% schema coverage with a title, range 2000-2100 and the gloss 'Anno di riferimento'. The description adds no further semantics such as whether the year bounds the scheduled-activities period or the execution dates, so the schema baseline of 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb (calcola / salva un CSV) plus the resource (attività programmate) and the exact breakdown produced (in tempo, in ritardo, non eseguite), segmented per reparto and tipo di attività. It is fully distinguishable from the siblings (list_roots, read_dir, cerca_apparecchi, scadenze, etc.), though that separation comes from obvious domain difference rather than explicit routing.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when a compliance/execution report per department is requested. There is no statement of when NOT to use it, no prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives such as scadenze or apparecchi_coinvolti, which might overlap for one-off lookups.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.