get_task_time

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states what is returned (time records and total sum) but fails to mention read-only nature, any authorization requirements, ordering of records, or behavior for edge cases like tasks with no time entries. The lack of context beyond the bare output is a significant 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 that immediately conveys the tool's function and scope. There is no redundant information or filler, making it highly efficient and appropriately concise.

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 with one parameter and no output schema, so the description must explain the return value. It does state that the return includes time records and a total sum, but it does not describe the structure, units, or format. Given the simple read nature, the description is minimally complete but could benefit from more explicit return details.

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 has one required parameter (task_id) with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description says 'de una tarea' which implicitly links the parameter to a task, but it does not mention the parameter name or provide details about the integer constraints. The description partially compensates but leaves the parameter semantics largely to 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's action ('Devuelve' = returns) and resource ('los registros de tiempo de una tarea' = the time records of a task), plus the added scope of 'su suma total' (its total sum). This distinguishes it from siblings like log_time (which adds time) and get_project_summary (which provides project-level summaries).

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 retrieving task time records and their total, which is evident from the purpose. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives, such as mentioning that log_time or get_project_summary should be used for other time-related operations.

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