productive_get_time_report

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

The description discloses that period is affected by PRODUCTIVE_BILLING_CUTOFF_DAY and that after/before are ignored if period is set. These are behavioral details beyond the schema. No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It does not discuss error handling or empty results, but the output schema covers return format.

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 concise: a clear one-sentence purpose followed by a structured bullet list of parameters. No redundancy or unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 the presence of an output schema (return format is covered elsewhere), the description sufficiently explains inputs and key behavioral constraints. It could mention that the report may return empty results, but overall it is complete for a summary report tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides essential meaning for all 5 parameters: period lists symbolic values, after/before specify ISO dates and precedence, person accepts multiple formats, project is optional. This adds significant value beyond the bare 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 gets a 'categorised hours summary' listing worked, client, internal, holidays. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like productive_list_time_entries (lists individual entries) and productive_get_employee_hours (likely different focus). The verb 'Get' and resource 'categorised hours summary' are specific.

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 explains parameter behavior (period overrides after/before, person defaults to 'me', project optional) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not or alternative recommendations are provided.

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