get_project_worklog_summary

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return type but does not state that the operation is read-only, safe, or side-effect-free. It also introduces 'workspace_slug' which is not in the schema, adding confusion rather than clarifying 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 relatively short with Args and Returns sections, but it contains an extraneous parameter not in the schema. This redundant and incorrect information detracts from the structure, though the overall length is acceptable.

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?

The tool is simple, and an output schema exists, so return details are not essential. However, the description's inclusion of a non-existent parameter and lack of guidance on when to use this versus list_work_logs makes it incomplete and potentially misleading for an agent deciding how to invoke it.

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 description does add meaning for 'project_id' as 'UUID of the project', which is helpful. However, it also lists 'workspace_slug' as an argument despite the schema having only 'project_id', misleading the agent about required inputs and potentially causing parameter passing errors.

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 'Get work log summary for a project', which identifies the action and resource. However, it lists 'workspace_slug' as an argument even though the input schema only accepts 'project_id', creating slight ambiguity about the actual invocation scope.

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 implies usage for obtaining a summary of work logs for a project, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_work_logs or state when a summary is preferred over detailed logs. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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