toggl_today

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned data (e.g., list structure, timezone handling). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 a single, efficient sentence: 'Get today's time entries with total duration.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes no wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits and usage context. Without annotations or output schema, the description should ideally provide more context on data format or limitations, but it meets the basic requirement for a simple read operation.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is applied for tools with zero parameters, as there's nothing to compensate for, and the description correctly avoids unnecessary parameter information.

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's purpose: 'Get today's time entries with total duration.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('today's time entries'), and additional output ('with total duration'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'toggl_current' or 'toggl_last_week,' which might also retrieve time entries but for different timeframes.

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. It doesn't mention siblings like 'toggl_current' (likely for current/ongoing entries) or 'toggl_last_week' (for past week), leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone. No explicit when/when-not or alternative recommendations are included.

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