user_time_summary

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds valuable behavioral details beyond structured data: matching by work-item author and date, the default month range, the cap on unbounded scans, and YouTrack's error message for unknown users. This gives the agent a realistic model of runtime behavior.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line summary, a focused paragraph on matching and default behavior, then a clear Args list. Every sentence carries useful information; no filler or repetition.

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's moderate complexity (5 params, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential operational details: defaults, range handling, all-time queries, error behavior, and parameter purposes. Nothing an agent needs for correct invocation is missing.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: user (login or id, required), instance (auto-detected), since/until (date format and defaults), and top_issues (default count). This adds substantial meaning over the bare schema titles and defaults.

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?

Description opens with a precise verb-object summary: 'Time summary for one user: total logged plus per-issue breakdown.' It clearly identifies the resource (one user) and the specific output (time summary with breakdown), which distinguishes it from sibling summary tools like monthly_time_report_by_user.

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 explains key usage context: defaults to current calendar month, warns against unbounded scans, suggests explicit early 'since' for all-time, and notes unknown-user error behavior. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the guidance is clear enough for correct invocation.

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