productive_get_employee_hours

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It explains parameters and their interactions (e.g., 'after' and 'before' ignored if period is set). However, it does not disclose whether the tool requires specific permissions, how data is aggregated (e.g., approved hours only), or if there are rate limits. The returned data format is not described.

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 clear and front-loaded with the purpose. The argument list is structured but slightly verbose with individual docstrings for each param. Could be trimmed to a single sentence about each param inline, but still efficient.

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 4 parameters and no annotations, the description covers parameter semantics well. However, it lacks context about output (though an output schema exists). It does not explain how this tool fits with siblings (e.g., 'productive_get_time_report' vs this). For a summary tool, it should clarify scope (e.g., billable vs non-billable hours).

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: explains that 'person' supports fuzzy matching (name, email, 'me'), 'period' uses symbolic values, and 'after'/'before' are ISO dates with dependency on 'period'. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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 it retrieves a named employee's hours summary for a period. The verb 'Get' and resource 'employee hours summary' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'productive_get_time_report', which might also return hours but aggregated differently.

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 period-based summaries of a specific employee. No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'productive_get_time_report' or 'productive_list_time_entries'. The 'period' parameter suggests snapshots, but no exclusions are provided.

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