Summarise tracked time

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

With readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false already covering the safety profile, the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: entries count on their start day, work_hours excludes holiday/absence credit unlike the app, scheduled_hours does not deduct absences, and the currently running timer is reported. It does not mention pagination or result size, which for a summarised report is a minor 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 purpose and default range are front-loaded in the first sentence, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct caveat about how the numbers are computed. It is dense for a three-parameter tool but nearly every clause carries information an agent would otherwise guess wrong.

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 read-only aggregation tool with an output schema and full schema coverage, the definition supplies the defaults, the counting rule, the null-project case, and the exclusion caveats. Nothing required to call it correctly or interpret the totals is missing.

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 the schema already documents from, to, and group_by fully, establishing the baseline of 3. The description restates the grouping options and the date default but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides for the parameters themselves.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Total tracked work and break hours in TimeScribe for a date range') and enumerates the three grouping dimensions, so an agent knows exactly what is aggregated. It is clearly distinguishable from the raw-entry siblings list_entries and list_projects, and it even defines the calculation semantics of the returned figures.

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?

Gives clear context: the date range defaults to the current ISO week (Monday to Sunday), and from/to are passed together. However, it never explicitly routes the agent away from list_entries or list_projects when raw data is wanted, so usage is inferred rather than stated.

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