timeline_report

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 disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions the report contents but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it has performance implications (e.g., Token ROI analysis may be expensive), or how the report is returned. This is a notable gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by a use case. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.

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 description gives a high-level view of the report's contents but does not clarify the effect of the 'full' parameter (though the schema does), nor does it differentiate from sibling 'timeline' or explain return structure. The lack of annotations and output schema places more burden on the description, which it only partially meets.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters, with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add further parameter-specific guidance, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 generates a project timeline report with specific contents (activity history, type distribution, Token ROI analysis). It goes beyond a simple restatement of the name, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'timeline'.

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?

It provides a clear usage context: 'Use for understanding project evolution and memory system value.' This is an explicit instruction on when to use the tool, though it lacks exclusions or comparisons to alternatives.

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