get_project_scheduling_totals

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that no data is mutated. The mention of 'POST filter body' adds some transparency about the request method, but no further behavioral context (e.g., pagination limits, required permissions) is provided.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and then list essential parameter constraints. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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?

Given that the tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain the return format (what do 'totals' contain?), pagination behavior, or further constraints. A more complete description would include the output structure and conditions for filtering.

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 description adds meaning for two parameters: it clarifies that 'start' and 'end' are required, and that 'status_filter' accepts specific values (PUBLISHED/UNPUBLISHED/ALL). However, it omits explanations for the other five parameters (workspace_id, search, page, page_size), leaving their purpose entirely to the schema, which has 0% coverage.

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 the action ('Get scheduled-assignment totals') and the resource ('per project'). It also mentions the HTTP method (POST) and filter body. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from closely related siblings like 'get_user_scheduling_totals', which is a missed opportunity.

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 specifies that 'start/end' are required and provides the valid values for 'status_filter' (PUBLISHED/UNPUBLISHED/ALL). However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to prefer project-level totals over user-level totals.

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