get_user_scheduling_totals

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

With no annotations, the description fails to disclose crucial behavioral traits (destructive?, read-only?, rate limits, response format). The mention of 'POST filter body' conflicts with the tool name's 'get' prefix, causing confusion.

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?

Two short sentences, no fluff. However, the structure could be improved by separating the method note (POST) from the parameter list.

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?

Without output schema or annotations, the description omits important context: what the totals represent (e.g., hours, assignments?), pagination behavior, and any error conditions. This is insufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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?

Only 2 of 7 parameters are explained (start, end, status_filter). The other 4 (workspace_id, search, page, page_size) have no description. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate but does not.

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 verb (Get) and resource (users' scheduling capacity totals), and the name distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project_scheduling_totals. However, 'scheduling capacity totals' is somewhat vague and could be more specific.

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?

Minimal guidance: only mentions required start/end and status_filter options. No comparison with alternatives like get_project_scheduling_totals, no when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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