wakatime_durations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: output is processed/summarized and never raw API JSON. However, it omits other behavioral details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or error behavior, leaving notable gaps.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the verb and object, followed by the key qualifiers. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a read tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives a general sense of the returned data ('summarized time blocks') but does not define what a duration block is or describe the response shape. It is adequate for a simple tool but leaves gaps around default behavior and return format.

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 already provides descriptions for date, branches, and timezone (75% coverage). The description only mentions date/project/branches without adding extra meaning, and 'project' has no schema description but is not elaborated in the text. Thus the description adds minimal value beyond 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 verb 'Fetch' and resource 'processed duration blocks', and specifies filtering dimensions (date/project/branches). It also distinguishes the output from raw API JSON, setting it apart from sibling tools like heartbeats or 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 gives clear context on what the tool returns and its filtering scope, implying it should be used when summarised duration blocks are needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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