user_time_summary

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

The description discloses key behaviors: default date range, capping of unbounded scans, matching criteria (author and date), and error handling. Since no annotations exist, it carries full burden. It does not cover auth needs or rate limits, but for a read-only tool this is sufficient.

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 (three paragraphs) and well-structured: purpose sentence, detailed behavior note, and clear Args list. Every sentence adds value; 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 5 parameters, output schema exists, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, default behavior, and error handling. It is complete for an agent to understand and invoke 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides full parameter semantics: user (required login or ID), instance (auto-detect), since/until (date format and defaults), top_issues (default 10). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type and default values.

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 'Time summary for one user: total logged plus per-issue breakdown,' specifying the verb (get summary), resource (time for a user), and scope (one user). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like monthly_time_report_by_user, which likely aggregates multiple users.

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 explicitly explains default behavior (current calendar month) and how to override for all-time ('Pass an explicit early since'). It also mentions error handling for unknown users. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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