Métricas de tempo

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 does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what data it returns, how it aggregates metrics, or any side effects. While it implicitly suggests reading metrics, there is no explicit statement about behavior, response format, or expected side effects.

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 extremely brief (one short line), which makes it under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It front-loads the key concept, but it lacks essential detail that the tool requires given its three undocumented parameters and no other structured information. It is not over-wordy, but it is too sparse to be effective.

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 3 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. An agent would have no idea what the tool returns, whether it requires authentication, how to combine filters, or what the results look like. The definition is missing substantial context that is critical for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. The phrase 'por ticket, projeto ou global' gives a hint that ticket_id, project_id, and project_key are filtering options, but it does not explain each parameter individually, their optionality, or how they interact. The description adds minimal value beyond the raw schema.

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 the resource (time metrics: estimated vs actual vs remaining) and the scoping options (ticket, project, global). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like time_estimate (logging) and time_log (recording), though the verb is implicit rather than explicit. Overall, a specific and understandable purpose.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that time_metrics is for viewing metrics while time_estimate and time_log are for creation/recording, nor does it give any context on typical workflows. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and minimal description.

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