invoices-get_durations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states 'Gets', implying a read operation, but lacks details on error behavior (e.g., missing invoice), pagination, or any potential side effects. The absence of output schema further limits transparency.

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—no wasted words. However, under-specification may harm completeness, but for conciseness alone it scores highly.

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 presence of sibling tools like invoices-list_unbilled_durations and the lack of output schema, the description fails to clarify what 'durations' are (e.g., time entries, billing items) or how this tool differs from alternatives. It lacks essential context for correct selection.

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 coverage for the single parameter invoice_id is 100%, and the schema already describes it as 'Invoice ID (@rid format)'. The description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 action ('Gets') and the resource ('all durations linked to an invoice'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like invoices-list_unbilled_durations, which also deals with durations. The verb 'get' implies retrieval, but the scope versus alternatives is unclear.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as invoices-list_unbilled_durations or invoices-get_expenses. There is no explanation of prerequisites, context, or when this tool is appropriate.

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