get_raw_user_reports

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It mentions the tool returns the raw API response and includes 'all user report data', implying it fetches data for all users rather than just the current user. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what errors might occur, or any rate-limit or data-size implications. Transparency is partial.

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-organized, with distinct sections for the summary, arguments, and return value. It avoids unnecessary wording and directly conveys the tool's purpose and usage.

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 explains that the return is a raw API response with all user report data, but it lacks details about the response format (e.g., JSON structure), error handling, or any side effects. Given the tool is for debugging, some vagueness is acceptable, but it is not fully complete in context.

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 only parameter, 'year', is explained with a clear description and examples (2024, 2025), which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare integer type. It does not specify a range or format constraints, but the explanation is sufficient for a simple parameter.

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: retrieving raw user reports from the Clockodo API, explicitly for debugging purposes. It also specifies the resource (user reports) and the endpoint, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle individual time entries or vacations.

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 notes the tool is 'for debugging' and returns 'raw' data, implying it is for low-level inspection. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over other tools (e.g., when a processed summary is needed) or provide concrete use cases. It gives some context but lacks direct comparison with alternatives.

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