Focus time totals

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits itself. It lists the output metrics but does not explicitly confirm that the operation is read-only, whether it includes the current ongoing session, or whether the data is scoped to the authenticated user. The absence of side effects is strongly implied, but not explicitly stated, leaving moderate gaps.

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 a single, efficiently worded sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists every distinct metric. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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 zero-parameter stats tool, this description covers all the important output values in a compact way. However, since no output schema is provided, the agent must infer the exact response structure (key names, units, formatting) from wording, which creates minor ambiguity.

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?

The tool accepts no parameters and the empty schema fully documents that. Per the rule, zero parameters yields a baseline score of 4. The description adds no parameter-level meaning because no parameters exist.

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 that the tool reports total focus time across several periods and includes additional summary metrics (best day, 30-day daily average). This enumerates the resource and fields precisely, but it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'report', so it doesn't fully meet the 5-level bar for verb+resource.

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 makes the usage context clear: call this when you need focus time totals over any listed period (today, 7/30/365 days, all time) or derived averages. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is specific enough that an agent can identify when this tool is appropriate.

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