get_summary

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 the purpose without revealing whether it is read-only, how it aggregates data, whether archived activities are included by default, or any other behavioral traits. The schema later shows includeArchivedActivities defaults to true, but the description itself adds no transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource without filler. It is concise, though perhaps too minimal to cover all necessary context, but as a standalone purpose statement it avoids wasted words.

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 summary tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is notably incomplete. It does not clarify what the summary contains (e.g., total hours, breakdown by day/project), nor does it explain how this relates to sibling tools like get_activities or get_timesheet. The lack of detail leaves the agent guessing at the tool's 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 input schema provides 100% description coverage for all parameters, including format examples for start/end and a description for includeArchivedActivities. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond echoing the date range concept, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter semantics.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('time summary for activities'), which effectively communicates the tool's core purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like get_activities or get_timesheet, though the term 'summary' implies a distinct aggregation role.

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 get_activities or get_timesheet. It lacks any mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios that would favor this tool, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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