timedoctor_get_timeuse_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 of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation via 'Get' but doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior, authentication requirements, pagination limits, or error handling. It also does not describe the output format, which is critical since no output schema exists. The description is minimal in behavioral detail.

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 front-loads the primary purpose. It has no redundant wording and is easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning scope or alternatives, but it remains appropriately sized and clear.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to use it correctly. It doesn't explain the difference from get_worklog, doesn't describe the return shape (e.g., aggregated per user or per day), and doesn't mention default behaviors like user defaulting to the authenticated user (though schema mentions it). The description lacks critical context for decision-making and expectation setting.

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 covers all 7 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, only reinforcing that stats are 'for a user or company' which matches the user and company parameters. It does not explain how category, page, or limit interact, nor does it provide examples or format constraints, so it doesn't significantly enhance schema 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'aggregated Time Doctor productivity statistics', specifying the dimensions (per application/category, productive vs. unproductive) and scope (user or company, time range). It is distinct from siblings like get_worklog which would provide detailed time entries, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as timedoctor_get_worklog or timedoctor_get_task. It does not specify scenarios like 'use for productivity overview' or exclusions like 'for raw time entries use get_worklog'. The agent is left to infer the appropriate use case, which is a significant gap given the variety of sibling tools.

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