time_log_preview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the key non-destructive behavior (no database write), which is the most critical trait for a dry-run tool. It does not elaborate on what 'impact' means (e.g., validation results, conflicting entries), but the core safe-operation point is covered.

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, highly concise sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose and side-effect-free nature. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which covers return values), the description provides no usage context beyond dry-run status. With zero parameter coverage and no annotations, the agent lacks critical details about required inputs, potential constraints, and what 'impact' the preview displays. The description is too thin for reliable invocation in varied scenarios.

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%, and the description does not mention any parameter or add meaning beyond the parameter names. It does not clarify value formats (e.g., date format, duration_minutes units) or how 'note' is used. The agent must guess from param titles, which is insufficient for a 4-parameter tool.

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 tool's function: to preview the impact of recording work hours, specifically as a dry-run that does not write to the database. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'time_log_apply' which presumably performs the actual write.

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 phrase 'dry-run，不写库' implies this tool should be used to check effects before actually applying changes, and the sibling set includes 'time_log_apply', making the alternative clear. However, it does not explicitly say 'use this before applying' or provide conditions for when to choose this over other preview tools.

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