get-project-logged-time-summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. The description does not mention read-only status, authentication needs, rate limits, or any side effects. For a read operation like fetching a summary, this is a critical gap.

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 sentence (12 words), efficient and front-loaded. It wastes no words. However, it sacrifices detail for brevity; some behavioral or usage context could be added without harming conciseness.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the summary contains (e.g., aggregated hours per person, daily breakdown, totals). The gap is notable given sibling tools like 'get-logged-time' and 'list-logged-time' which have more descriptive names. The agent lacks critical information to decide if this tool returns the required data.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. It hints at 'team member contributions' which loosely relates to the people_id filter but does not clarify its role. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 gets a logged time summary for a project and includes team member contributions. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get-person-logged-time-summary' and 'list-logged-time' by specifying the aggregation at project level with team contributions. However, 'logged time summary' is somewhat vague and could be more specific about the aggregation details.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings like 'get-person-logged-time-summary' or 'get-billable-time-report'. The description implies project-level usage, but there is no exclusion criteria or alternative suggestions. The agent must infer from context alone.

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