productive_my_briefing

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It states the output includes projects, hours, and entries, implying a read operation, but does not explicitly confirm read-only status, data scope (authenticated user), or potential 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?

The description is concise (two sentences plus args) with no wasted words. It could be slightly improved by using a bulleted list for args, but overall it is clear and 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 the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. It mentions key output elements. However, missing behavioral context like read-only semantics or authentication requirements prevents a higher score.

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 only parameter 'period' is described with allowed values (this_week, last_week, this_month, last_month) and default, which adds full meaning beyond the schema that only provides type and default. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates.

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 'Get a summary of your week: projects touched, hours logged, recent entries' clearly states the specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like productive_log_time or productive_get_time_report by focusing on a personal weekly overview.

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 personal weekly summaries but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like productive_get_time_report or productive_list_time_entries. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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