bitrix_get_worktime_report

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 explicitly declares read-only, identifies the underlying module, warns about the access scope, and states that at least one of departmentId/userIds is needed. It does not describe the response format or edge cases, but for a read-only summary tool the disclosed behavior is substantial and accurate.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler: the first defines the output and underlying module, the second disambiguates from the sibling tool, the third gives scope and permission. All information is front-loaded and every clause contributes to correct tool selection or invocation.

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 read-only query with no output schema, the description covers purpose, data fields, scope, permissions, and the distinguishing alternative. It omits details like exact response shape and how results are aggregated per user, but the named metrics and period make the tool usable. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, this is strong but not exhaustive.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining the relationship between departmentId and userIds, the at-least-one requirement, and the date range scope. This is extra value not present in the structured parameter descriptions.

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 output (workday summary with hours, idle time, and worked days) over a date range, and explicitly contrasts itself with bitrix_get_timesheet_summary. It is immediately clear what resource this tool reads and how it differs from its closest sibling.

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?

It names the alternative tool, states the exact semantic difference (task elapsed time vs. actual workday opening/closing), and clarifies the scope requirement: departmentId and/or userIds with at least one required. It also mentions the required 'timeman' access scope, giving the agent concrete selection and invocation guidance.

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