get_developer_work_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It explicitly states the tool returns structured rows only and that the caller flags concerns narratively, clarifying that it does not perform analysis. The 'Fetch' verb implies read-only behavior, but it does not detail error handling or rate limits, so a 4 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences, both necessary: the first establishes the tool's purpose and grouping; the second clarifies the return behavior and division of responsibility. No wasted words, and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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?

The description omits details about the exact fields in the structured rows. While it indicates grouping by author and update set, it does not specify metrics like change counts or sizes. Since there is no output schema, an agent may not know the shape of the returned rows. The two-parameter simplicity helps, but more detail would improve completeness.

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 100% with both parameters documented as YYYY-MM-DD dates. The description adds only that they are 'between two dates,' which is redundant. Per rubric, high schema coverage yields a baseline of 3, and the description adds no meaningful new semantics.

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 states a specific verb (fetch), a precise resource (developer work, sys_update_xml changes), a date range, and grouping by author and update set. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_syslog_report or get_optimization_recommendations, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies use for analyzing developer work between dates and notes that the caller handles narrative analysis, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., get_syslog_report) or when not to use it. It provides context but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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