get_task_summary

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds the look-back window and metric scope, but does not disclose details such as whether tasks with no runs are included, how missing values behave, or whether results are grouped when task_type is omitted. It adds some value without contradicting the annotation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence conveys the purpose, scope, and key return fields with no filler. Every clause adds useful information and the core action is stated first.

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 only two optional parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no meaningful nested complexity, the description covers the metrics returned and the temporal scope. It leaves minor ambiguity about default grouping behavior when task_type is omitted, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 both parameters are already described in the input schema. The description reinforces that 'days' is the look-back window and 'task_type' limits the result, but it does not add substantive meaning beyond what the schema provides; baseline 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?

Description names a specific verb and resource ('Get per-task-type statistics') with a clear temporal scope ('over the last N days') and enumerates the exact metrics returned. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_task_status_counts, get_statistics, and list_tasks without needing to open schemas.

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 conveys that the tool is for historical statistics but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives such as get_task_status_counts or get_statistics, and no exclusions or conditions. Usage context is implied at best.

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