get_work_time_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get' (implying read-only) but does not mention what the summary contains, whether it covers all members or specific ones, how data is aggregated, or any limitations. No auth, rate limits, or return format details are given.

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 very concise, with a single purpose statement and parameter list. It is appropriately front-loaded and contains no wasted words. However, it is slightly under-specified, but that is a completeness issue, not a conciseness one.

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 relatively simple (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), but the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the 'work time summary' includes (e.g., daily totals, per-person breakdown), what time period is covered beyond the month, or what the response structure looks like. An agent would struggle to know what to expect from the call.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does provide useful context: 'year: 年 (例: 2026)' and 'month: 月 (1-12)', clarifying the expected format and range for month. This goes beyond the schema's type-only definitions, compensating for the lack of property descriptions.

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 function: '勤務時間サマリーを取得する' (Get work time summary), which is a specific verb+resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_project_kpis or get_member_kpis, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only lists parameters without any context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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