Time report

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description goes further by stating this server never logs time, how the project scope is derived and overridden, and how the period boundary is defined (Monday–Sunday, inclusive dates). That is substantive behavioral context an agent cannot infer from the annotation or schema.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the report's output shape before defaults. Slight redundancy: the period default and project scope are partially restated from the schema's own descriptions, so not every clause is new information.

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 six-parameter, zero-required, read-only reporting tool with no output schema, the description covers scope resolution, period defaults, and the available breakdown dimensions, which is most of what an agent needs. It stops short of describing the response shape of each grouping level beyond naming them.

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 a 3 is the baseline, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: the week starts Monday and dates are inclusive, and the project scope falls back to the .weeek.json project unless "all" is passed. It does not explain member or groupBy interaction, which keeps it from a 5.

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 — a time-tracking report covering manual entries and timer data — with the breakdown dimensions (total, per task, day, member, project). It is unambiguously distinct from the task/comment/attachment siblings, which are all CRUD operations, so an agent can route to it without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear operating context: read-only, never logs time, defaults to the project of .weeek.json, use project "all" for the whole workspace, and period defaults to the current week. It implies the read-only reporting use case but does not name an alternative tool to compare against, so it stops short of explicit when-not/exclusion guidance.

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