get_time_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the aggregation and grouping behavior but omits details like read-only nature (though implied by 'get'), handling of empty results, pagination, or authentication requirements. It also doesn't clarify whether the default output includes entries (mitigated by the include_entries parameter).

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, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the action, resource, scope, and grouping. There is no wasted wording, and it is easy to scan.

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 six optional parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat sparse. It doesn't explain parameter combinations (e.g., whether filters are mutually exclusive), the default behavior when no filters are provided, or the expected output structure beyond 'totalled per person'. The schema covers individual parameter meanings but not their interactions.

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 100%, so each parameter is already described (e.g., 'Inclusive start date', 'Limit to one project'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, aligning with the baseline of 3 for high 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 verb 'summarise' and the resource 'logged time and money', with scope limited to an account, project, or task over a date range, and grouping per person. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_costs (money only) and get_running_timers (active timers) by its aggregation focus.

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 implies usage for obtaining aggregated time and money totals per person over a date range, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool (e.g., if raw entries are needed without totals, or if only costs are needed).

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