get_productivity_summary

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

The description explicitly states that the tool returns aggregated statistics with breakdowns, which complements the readOnlyHint annotation by detailing the read behavior. It does not contradict annotations and adds value by describing the output structure, though it could mention that it only returns aggregated data, not raw events.

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 exceptionally concise—two sentences that efficiently communicate the tool's purpose and output. Every word adds value, and it is structurally front-loaded with the core action.

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 covers the key outputs (total coding time, language breakdown, etc.), which compensates for the lack of an output schema. However, it could be more complete by mentioning the tool's aggregate-only nature or its relationship to time-based filtering. Still, it is adequate for a read-only statistics tool.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., detailed range formats) are sufficient. The description adds no significant meaning beyond the schema, such as default behavior or format restrictions, so it meets the baseline expectation.

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 'Get aggregated coding productivity statistics for a time range' and lists the specific outputs (total coding time, language breakdown, etc.), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_ai_insights' and 'get_developer_context' through its focus on productivity metrics.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings or alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where this tool is appropriate or inappropriate, nor does it reference other tools for different use cases.

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