monthly_time_report_by_user

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

No annotations provided, but the description explains key behavioral traits: grouping by work-item author (not assignee), keying by login, and parameter defaults. It lacks a statement on read-only nature but covers the essential logic.

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 concise, well-structured with a summary paragraph and Args block. Every sentence adds value, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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 the tool has 5 optional parameters and an output schema, the description adequately covers the return behavior (summed durations, grouped by author), the author vs assignee distinction, and parameter defaults. No gaps identified.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter in the Args block, including defaults and expected values (e.g., year, month, group_by). This adds significant meaning beyond the 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 clearly states 'Monthly time report aggregated by the user who logged the time' and explains it sums work-item durations grouped by author, not assignee. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like user_time_summary.

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 provides context on parameters and defaults, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like user_time_summary. However, the 'group_by' parameter hint at flexibility.

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