get_agent_volume_of_work

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

The annotations already declare 'readOnlyHint=true', indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that it provides a 'metric', which is consistent. No additional behavioral traits like rate limits, data freshness, or aggregation method are mentioned.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose with no extraneous words. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 the tool has 3 required parameters, no output schema, and sibling tools that could overlap, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'volumen de trabajo' represents (e.g., number of conversations, messages, hours), leaving ambiguity for the agent.

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 67% (start_date and end_date have descriptions in schema, agent_id lacks description). The tool description does not add any further meaning or format details beyond what the schema provides, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 it provides a metric for an agent's work volume over a date range, using specific verb 'ver' (see) and resource 'volumen de trabajo'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_agent_conversations' or 'get_agent_performance_report' which also provide agent metrics.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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