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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful scoping (only running or paused activities) and the notion of elapsed time, but it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what happens if no activities are active, or how elapsed time is calculated. This is adequate for a simple getter but lacks deeper behavioral detail.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the key action and scope. Every word contributes meaning; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), so the description doesn't need to be exhaustive. However, since there is no output schema, an agent might benefit from knowing what fields are returned (e.g., activity name, elapsed time). The description gives a high-level idea but leaves these details implicit. Overall, it is minimally sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 schema provides 100% description coverage for the single optional 'timezone' parameter, meeting the schema itself. The description does not mention the parameter, but the schema already explains it fully. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema.

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 action ('Show'), the resource ('currently running or paused activities'), and the additional detail ('with elapsed time'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_activity_types (which lists activity types) and list_intervals (which lists historical intervals), so an agent can easily identify when to use this tool.

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 provides clear context: it is for viewing live activity state, not historical reports. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is unambiguous enough for an agent to infer when to use it. The lack of explicit 'when not to use' guidance drops it from 5 to 4.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tree structure and the semantic distinction between names and ids. It implies a read-only operation via 'List' and is transparent about what is returned, though it could mention default filtering behavior or side effects.

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?

Two concise sentences with no fluff. The key action and result shape are front-loaded, and the usage guidance earns its place by explaining the name/id distinction.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what is listed, the tree structure, and how to use the returned data. The missing archived default is documented in the schema.

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 schema covers the only parameter include_archived with a description, so schema coverage is 100%. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline is 3 per rubric 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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('the user's activity types'), and clarifies the output format ('as a tree (groups contain children): names plus internal ids'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_intervals.

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 gives clear usage guidance: 'Use the names when talking to the user; use the ids for exact targeting in other tools.' This helps the agent decide how to apply the output, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives since none directly overlap.

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

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a 100-day limit, day-grouped output, and day-based pagination ('use page for older days'), which are key operational behaviors. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but for a read-only list tool these are the most relevant constraints.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the main purpose is front-loaded. Each sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description covers date range and pagination but does not mention alternative date formats (period) or available filters (tags, type_ids, type_names). While the schema documents these, the description is not fully complete given the tool's complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that `page` advances to older days and that results are grouped by day, complementing the schema's parameter descriptions and giving extra meaning beyond the structured definitions.

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: listing raw time entries (intervals) grouped by day for a date range, with a 100-day maximum. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_activity_types (which lists type metadata) and time_report (likely aggregated), using a specific verb and resource.

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 gives context (raw entries, date range, max 100 days) and hints at pagination for older days, but it does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives like time_report or say when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that times are wall-clock in the user's timezone and the expected format, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., creating a record), prerequisites (which parameter is required: type_id or type_name), or output behavior, leaving significant behavioral context unknown.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a critical input-format constraint. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy.

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?

The description adequately conveys the purpose and a key input detail, but given 7 parameters and no annotations or output schema, it does not fully explain how to choose between type_id and type_name, whether either is required, or what the tool returns. The schema covers much, but optional params like tags/comment remain unexplained.

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 schema covers 71% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds the wall-clock/timezone context relevant to 'from' and 'to', but tags and comment are left undefined in both schema and description. Since coverage is above 50%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'log' with a clear resource 'completed time entry' and the modifier 'retroactively', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_activity/stop_activity that handle live tracking, and update_activity which modifies existing entries.

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 provides clear context: this tool is for retroactively logging completed time entries. It implies when to use it (when an entry has already finished) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls just short of a 5.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the required activity state but does not disclose side effects, error conditions, or how the pause/resume affects time tracking.

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, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place with no unnecessary 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?

The description is adequate for a simple toggle tool, and the schema provides usable parameter details. However, with no output schema or annotations, it omits return values, error behavior, and when to use this over stop_activity, leaving some gaps.

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 coverage is 67%, with type_name and activity_id already described. The main description adds minimal meaning by mapping 'pause' and 'resume' to activity states, but does not explain selection behavior or the internal id warning beyond the schema.

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 uses specific verbs 'Pause' and 'resume' with the resource 'activity', and further clarifies state constraints (running vs paused). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_activity and stop_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use pause vs stop, when to resume, or any prerequisites. The description states what the tool does but not when to prefer it over alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal fuzzy matching and backdate semantics, but omits critical side effects for a state-changing tool: what happens if an activity is already being tracked, whether starting overwrites the current status, permissions needed, or any return/error behavior. This is a meaningful transparency 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each clause adds necessary information (type identification, backdating options). No wasted words or repetition of schema details.

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?

The tool has five parameters, no required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description does not clarify whether at least one of type_id/type_name is required, nor does it explain typical success/failure responses or conflicts with an in-progress activity. This level of ambiguity makes the description incomplete for a state-changing tool, despite good parameter-level coverage.

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 schema already fully documents all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by noting that type_name is fuzzy matched, pointing to list_activity_types for valid names, and clarifying that at and started_minutes_ago are alternative backdating mechanisms. This helps an agent choose between the two backdate options.

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 action ('Start tracking an activity'), the resource (activity), and the key input modes (type name or type_id). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like stop_activity and pause_resume_activity by explicitly being about starting tracking.

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 provides clear context: use this to start tracking an activity, with guidance to consult list_activity_types for fuzzy name matching. It does not explicitly mention exclusions (e.g., when not to use), but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately over siblings.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses the ability to backdate with at or stopped_minutes_ago and the condition for type_name, which is useful. However, it does not mention what happens if no activity is active, whether the interval is definitively closed, or any side effects, leaving the agent without full awareness of edge cases.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds important operational detail. There is no filler or repetition of schema content, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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?

With five parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and adds key usage semantics. It is fairly complete for a simple stop tool, though it could briefly note error conditions (e.g., no active activity) or what is returned. The schema handles parameter details, so this slight gap does not significantly impair context.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value beyond the schema by explaining that type_name may be omitted when exactly one activity is active and by clarifying that at and stopped_minutes_ago are alternative backdating options. This helps the agent understand parameter relationships and selection.

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 stops a running or paused activity, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like start_activity and pause_resume_activity by indicating it ends an activity. The nuance about omitting type_name when exactly one activity is active also reinforces the purpose.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (to stop an activity) and includes a specific condition: type_name may be omitted when exactly one activity is active. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like pause_resume_activity or update_activity, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format (totals and buckets) but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, data source, or edge cases. It adds some behavioral context but not comprehensive transparency.

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?

Two sentences totaling 19 words, front-loaded with the core purpose and output structure. No redundant information, every sentence earns its place.

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?

With 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat sparse. It does not explain how to use from/to vs period, filtering by tags/type_ids/type_names, or the exact structure of returned data, leaving gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to parameters; it only hints at date range and bucket size, which are already documented in the schema.

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 provides 'Aggregated time statistics per activity type for a date range' and 'Returns overall totals plus per-DAY/WEEK/MONTH buckets'. This specifies a concrete resource and action, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_intervals which return raw intervals.

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 aggregated time statistics but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or mention exclusions/alternatives. There is no guidance on when not to use it.

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