wetrack_get_my_work_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns stat cards, status/priority distributions, and a ticket list scoped to the current user, and it mentions filtering and pagination parameters. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether authentication or impersonation affects results, or any side effects—though this is less critical for a report tool.

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 summary is front-loaded and the Args list is terse and readable, with no filler. Each parameter gets a one-line explanation, which is appropriate for an 8-parameter tool.

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 an 8-parameter report tool with no annotations, the description is mostly adequate for invocation: each parameter has meaning and the return contents are summarized, with an output schema for return details. It falls short on usage guidance and on clarifying parameter relationships/defaults, so an agent must infer when to choose this over sibling report tools.

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%, and the description compensates by documenting all 8 parameters, including allowed enums for date_range ('this_week', 'this_month', 'this_sprint', 'custom'), date format for from_date/to_date, and filter semantics for project/status/priority. It does not clarify how date_range relates to from_date/to_date, but this is a strong compensation for an otherwise bare schema.

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 identifies a specific resource ('Current user's My Work report') and the components returned ('stat cards, status/priority distributions, and a ticket list'), with an explicit scope ('what's assigned to me'). It is clear and implicitly differentiates from sibling report tools like wetrack_get_my_sprint_report, though it does not name alternatives explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus wetrack_get_my_sprint_report, wetrack_get_reports, wetrack_get_dashboard, or wetrack_list_tickets. The phrase 'scoped to what's assigned to me' implies a personal report context, but the description never states when to prefer this tool or what it is not for.

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