get_timers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (series of {x, y} points), resolution (per-minute), time scope (calendar day or date_comparator window), and data fidelity ('Values are preserved exactly'). This adds significant behavioral context beyond the tool name, though it omits potential edge cases or error behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and return details. No filler or redundancy; every sentence 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?

Given the complexity (14 parameters, no annotations, 0% parameter coverage), the description is incomplete. It provides a good high-level overview and output information, but leaves the semantics of all filter parameters undefined, making it hard for an agent to invoke the tool correctly for non-default use cases.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 14 parameters. It only briefly mentions 'timer', 'custom_timer', and 'date_comparator' in passing, without details on their meaning, format, or effect. This is a critical gap for a tool with many optional filtering 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 a single timer's value by minute over time, forming a time series. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it is best for one timer and explicitly referencing get_metrics for multiple timers/metrics, ensuring unambiguous purpose.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Best for one timer... For multiple timers/metrics at once, use get_metrics.' This clearly tells the agent when to use this tool and when to use an alternative, with a specific sibling tool name.

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