Get music vs work split

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

With no annotations provided, the description effectively discloses behavioral traits: the classification logic (native apps vs. browser sites), override mechanisms, and filter inheritance from get_report. It lacks details on data freshness or rate limits, but is transparent about core behavior.

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 moderately concise, containing multiple sentences that each add necessary context (buckets, overrides, filters). It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Slightly verbose due to detailed filter explanations, but still efficient.

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 explains the return value structure (three buckets plus per-source totals). It covers all key aspects for a complex tool with 7 parameters and no required fields. Could specify return units (hours/minutes), but overall complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning by explaining how parameters like music_apps and music_browser_projects override defaults, and how hour, weekday, and device filters work. This exceeds the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 splits tracked time into three specific buckets ('work with music', 'music only', 'work without music') and returns per-source totals. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_report by detailing the unique classification logic and honoring the same filters.

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 explains when to use this tool (to analyze music vs. work split), including how to override default music classification. It references get_report for filter consistency, but does not explicitly list when not to use it or suggest alternatives like get_app_breakdown.

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