get_project_worklog_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation ('get') but fails to mention auth requirements, error handling (e.g., missing project), rate limits, or any side effects. The minimal description does not adequately compensate for missing annotations.

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, direct sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose without extraneous words. It is well front-loaded and highly concise, earning full marks.

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 the tool has an output schema (likely detailing the summary structure) and a single parameter, the description is minimally complete. However, it does not clarify the distinction between a 'summary' and a list of logs, nor does it address edge cases, making it only adequate.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'project_id', describing it as 'UUID of the project'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Get work log summary for a project.' clearly specifies the action ('get') and resource ('work log summary'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'list_work_logs' (which likely lists individual logs) and other retrieval tools by focusing on a summary. However, it does not elaborate on what the summary contains, which slightly limits clarity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_work_logs' or 'create_work_log'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage without additional support.

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