Get daily totals (calendar / heatmap)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that both active and passive seconds are returned and that zero-activity days are included. However, it does not describe potential large data sizes, rate limits, or authentication needs. The return format (e.g., structure of each day entry) is implicit but not explicit.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the core purpose in the first sentence. Every sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy. It is succinct yet informative.

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 no output schema, the description reasonably covers the type of data (active/passive seconds per day) and a key constraint (inclusion of zero-activity days). However, it lacks details on the exact format of each day entry (e.g., date format, units). For a tool with multiple siblings, it does not specify how it differs from get_focus_heatmap or other calendar-like endpoints, slightly reducing completeness.

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 is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds value by explaining the default 'year' period analogy to GitHub heatmap and advising on other period usage for narrower windows. It also hints at the benefit of including zero-activity days for streak analysis, which helps the agent understand the period parameter's effect.

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 returns 'Dense per-day series of active and passive seconds for a period'. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the default 'year' period for a GitHub-style heatmap and explicitly including zero-activity days for streak analysis. The verb 'get' and resource 'daily totals' are unambiguous.

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 useful context on when to use different periods (default 'year' for heatmap, other periods for narrower windows) and notes zero-activity inclusion for streak/gap analysis. However, it does not explicitly tell the agent when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_focus_heatmap or other breakdown tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or limitations.

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