Track how many times local WorkBuddy tasks were invoked over a specified period. See usage counts to monitor activity without making new calls or estimating costs.
Show local invocation counts. This does not call WorkBuddy or estimate money.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It transparently states that the tool does not call WorkBuddy or estimate money, which are important non-obvious behavioral constraints. It does not elaborate on output format or side effects, but for a local read-style display tool this is reasonably transparent.
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?
Two short sentences, with the main action first and the key boundary ('does not call WorkBuddy or estimate money') immediately after. No wasted words and no redundancy with the schema.
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 a simple one-parameter tool, the core purpose and key non-behaviors are covered. However, the role of 'days' is left to inference and no output shape is described, so an agent may not fully understand what it will receive or how to adjust the time window.
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 should compensate for the undocumented 'days' parameter, but it does not mention it at all. The schema's default/min/max provide some constraints, yet the description fails to explain whether 'days' is a lookback window or how it affects the counts.
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 ('Show') and resource ('local invocation counts'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like delegate_to_workbuddy by clarifying it does not call WorkBuddy.
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 conveys that this is for local usage counts and not for executing WorkBuddy or estimating costs, but it never explicitly names alternatives or states clear when-to-use versus them. Usage context is implied rather than fully specified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.