get_project_hours

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains the return values but does not disclose side effects, auth requirements, or error handling. It implies read-only behavior via 'report' but not explicitly.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and output details. Every word adds value; no redundancy.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main use case and parameter flexibility. It lacks potential error or edge-case info, but is largely complete for a simple report tool.

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 single parameter 'project' is described as accepting a name, unique name fragment, or numeric id—info entirely missing from the input schema. With 0% schema coverage, this description is essential and adds full 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 it reports on how a single project tracks against its budget, listing returned fields (metadata, budget_hours, logged_hours, remaining_hours) and gives an example query. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_projects or utilization_report.

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?

It specifies use cases: 'how is Orion tracking against budget' or before logging significant time. It implicitly suggests when to use but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use.

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