Timeline Report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Read-only' restates these. However, it adds useful behavioral context by disclosing that database failures return a tool error, which is not present in the annotations. This provides a clearer failure model.

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 concise and well-structured: it opens with purpose, explains parameter behavior, then gives usage guidance and error behavior. Every sentence carries relevant information with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality, output format (Markdown), parameter effects, usage recommendations, and failure behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by clarifying the 'full' flag's semantics: 'full defaults to false for the compact report; full=true adds the detailed timeline and monthly breakdown.' This goes beyond the schema's wording by distinguishing compact vs. detailed reports and describing the overall report content.

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 a specific action ('Generate an aggregated Markdown report') with a defined scope (project activity history, type distribution, Token ROI analysis). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by stating 'Use this for project-level reporting, not observation lookup; use timeline for chronological context around one observation.'

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use this for project-level reporting, not observation lookup; use timeline for chronological context around one observation.' It also explains the effect of the 'full' parameter and notes failure behavior, covering both when to use and when not to use it.

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