get_productivity_trend

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that the output includes 'visual bars and calculates averages,' but does not describe data sources, update frequency, permissions, or side effects. This is minimal context for a tool that likely produces a visual response.

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 concise with four sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, followed by a structured argument explanation, then two sentences on output and usage. There is no fluff.

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 an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values, but it does mention visual bars and averages. The single parameter is well-documented. It lacks information on data freshness or timezone handling, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a simple trend tool.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining the 'days' parameter: 'Number of days to look back (default: 7, max 14).' This adds constraints and meaning 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 clearly states that the tool retrieves a productivity trend for a specified number of days, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('productivity pulse trend'). It provides context about daily pulse and averages, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools.

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 suggests it is 'useful for identifying patterns and trends over time,' which implies a usage scenario. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternative tools among the siblings.

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