get_recap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the aggregation shape (by weekday and hour, not by date) and the returned content, but says nothing about read-only safety, required permissions, or error behavior for a 2-param tool.

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 the core scope ('Year in review for one calendar year'), then a compact enumeration of outputs. The list of contents is long but each item conveys distinct return-value information.

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?

With no output schema, describing the returned tiles, breakdowns, busiest hour, and weekday/hour aggregation is genuinely valuable and makes the return shape predictable. Minor gaps: no statement of read-only nature or expected failure modes.

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 100%, so both 'year' (omit for current) and 'agents' (omit for all) are already fully documented in the schema. The description only reinforces 'one calendar year' and 'per-agent', adding no syntax or format detail 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?

States a specific verb+resource (year-in-review recap for one calendar year) and enumerates the contents, which clearly separates it from get_daily_usage and get_usage. It never names a sibling for contrast, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope ('one calendar year', 'not by date'), which points away from the daily/usage siblings. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no alternative is named.

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