Reported Days Tool

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the data source (git) and, critically, the shape of the response since no output schema exists. It does not cover failure modes (e.g., no repo, unlinked project) or what /history rebuild implies operationally.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the imperative 'Call it first' and then enumerates returns. The parenthetical field list is dense but every item carries information an agent needs to interpret the response.

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?

With no output schema and three optional parameters, the description usefully compensates by naming the returned fields and pointing at next_steps for follow-through. It could be more complete about behavior when no repo or project is resolvable, but the essentials for calling it correctly are present.

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 100%, so all three parameters (repo, project, session) are already documented, including the precedence rule that the session's project wins over the repo. The description adds nothing about parameter precedence or fallback behavior beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('rebuild a project's history from git') and enumerates the concrete outputs (reported days, from, untimed_days, next_steps), so an agent knows what it gets back. It does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as log_history or my_day, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

'Call it first' gives explicit sequencing guidance, which is unusual and valuable for an agent planning a multi-step flow. It gives no when-not-to-use condition and names no alternative tool, so it stops short of 5.

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