Lançar horas

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. The description simply states 'lança tempo trabalhado' without explaining whether it appends to existing logs, requires pre-existing tickets/tasks, or how it handles timezone/validation. It is essentially a restatement of the tool's purpose and provides no additional behavioral context.

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 short sentence, which is not a matter of conciseness but under-specification. It does not front-load key information about parameters or behavior, and every word simply restates the obvious from the name and title. It is appropriately short in length but fails to earn its place by omitting necessary details.

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 tool with five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain return values, constraints like required fields beyond schema, or any relationship between ticket_id and task_id. An agent has no way to correctly invoke this tool beyond guessing from the schema, which itself is sparse.

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 only 40%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The schema itself documents 'hours' and 'logged_at', but the description doesn't elaborate on the meaning or constraints of any parameter. With five parameters and incomplete schema coverage, the description fails entirely to compensate, leaving agents blind to how to correctly fill note, task_id, or ticket_id.

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 uses a specific verb 'lança' (launches) and the resource 'tempo trabalhado em um ticket ou task' (worked time on a ticket or task), which clearly states the tool's function. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling 'time_estimate', which could be confused for similar functionality.

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 like 'time_estimate' or 'time_metrics'. The description provides neither explicit context nor exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate usage.

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