Weekly timesheet summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it declares read-only behavior, states the TEMPO_API_TOKEN requirement, and discloses the key semantic that only actually recorded worklogs are counted. It does not describe the returned structure or volume, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Four dense sentences with the operation front-loaded, then week resolution, then the counting caveat, then the auth note. Every sentence adds information; no filler or repetition.

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 an aggregation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the important semantics: scope, week resolution, default behavior, and the recorded-only counting rule. The main remaining gap is what the aggregate result actually looks like (day/issue grouping shape), plus the unresolved parameter precedence.

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 compensate. It gives useful meaning for `date`/`weekStartDate` (week resolution and default), but leaves the precedence between the two parameters ambiguous and never mentions `authorAccountId` (presumably defaulting to the caller), leaving one of three parameters unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb (aggregate), a specific resource (recorded Tempo worklogs), and the output granularity (by day and by issue) for a bounded scope (Monday..Sunday). This implicitly separates it from the raw-listing siblings like tempo_get_worklogs, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Explains how the target week is selected (from `date` or `weekStartDate`, defaulting to the current week in the configured timezone) and clarifies that unrecorded days are reported as 'no recorded worklogs' rather than as missing work. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative is given, so it stops short of a 5.

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