wakatime_today

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the default timezone, which is a behavioral trait, but it does not disclose return fields, whether the operation is read-only, authentication requirements, rate limits, or how the summary is computed. The description is too sparse to give the agent a clear behavioral model.

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, short, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the purpose. There is no filler or redundancy; every word contributes to understanding the tool's basic function.

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 only 2 optional parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not explain what fields the summary contains or how it relates to sibling tools like wakatime_summaries. It lacks sufficient context for an agent to know what to expect in the response or when this tool is appropriate beyond the bare 'today' scope.

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 has 50% coverage: 'timezone' is described with an example, and the description adds that Asia/Tokyo is the default. However, 'project' has no description in the schema and is not explained in the tool description, leaving its semantics unclear. The description partially compensates for the schema gaps but does not fully clarify both parameters.

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 tool returns today's summary in JSON format, using the verb '返します' (returns) and specifying the resource '今日のサマリ' (today's summary). It also notes the default timezone, which adds useful scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like wakatime_summaries, but the 'today' qualifier provides implicit distinction.

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 the tool is for retrieving today's summary, and the mention of a default timezone suggests usage context. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wakatime_summaries, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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