wakatime_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Never raw API JSON', which is a minimal hint about output format. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, how 'processed' is defined, or what the response looks like.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The key verb and resource are front-loaded, and the second sentence provides a meaningful qualifier. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must compensate. While it gives a basic overview, it lacks enough context for an agent to confidently invoke it—particularly in relation to similar sibling tools (e.g., wakatime_summaries) and the expected output structure.

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 67%, with 'project' lacking any description. The description only reinforces the 'range' parameter by mentioning 'for a range', but does not explain 'project', 'timezone', or parameter interactions. It adds limited meaning 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 action ('Fetch'), the resource ('processed aggregated stats'), and scope ('for a range'). It lists the types of stats included, which adds specificity. It doesn't fully distinguish from siblings like wakatime_summaries, but the 'Never raw API JSON' phrase hints at differentiation.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for processed/stats data rather than raw data, but does not name any sibling tools or state specific use cases or exclusions.

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