Mapa de calor horario

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It says the tool extracts timeline posts and generates a matrix, which implies a read-only analysis. However, it does not specify auth needs, data limits, whether it processes all historical posts, or what happens if the timeline is empty. Basic behavior is disclosed, but not rich 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and output. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or extraneous detail.

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 simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It specifies the input source (own timeline) and the output (7x24 matrix). It could optionally mention the time span covered (e.g., all available data) but this is a minor gap, not a critical omission.

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 tool has zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details because none exist, and the input schema is empty. No additional documentation is needed for parameters.

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 explicitly identifies a specific action ('Extrae las publicaciones del propio timeline') and a clear deliverable ('genera una matriz 7x24 con el volumen de publicaciones por hora/día'). This distinguishes it from sibling analytics tools, which focus on metrics, growth, or performance rather than a heatmap of posting activity.

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 clearly implies usage: use when you need a weekly hourly heatmap of your own post volume. It states the scope ('propio timeline') but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or say when not to use it. Still, the intent is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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