toggl_weekly

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 a summary (implying read-only), but doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output format looks like (e.g., JSON structure). For a tool with no 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 that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words and directly states what the tool does. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating the summary components (e.g., 'Provides a weekly summary including total hours, daily breakdowns, and project breakdowns').

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 of time tracking data and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., whether it's a detailed report or aggregated totals), how data is structured, or potential limitations (e.g., only shows tracked time, excludes billable vs. non-billable). For a tool with no structured output documentation, more context is needed.

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 adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, which has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'week_offset'. The schema description fully explains the parameter's purpose and values (e.g., 0 for current week, -1 for last week). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 weekly time tracking summary with total hours, daily/project breakdowns'. It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('weekly time tracking summary'), and what the summary includes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'toggl_last_week' or 'toggl_today', which likely provide similar time tracking data 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_last_week' (which might overlap for week_offset=-1) or 'toggl_today', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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