toggl_daily_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool generates a report but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, data freshness, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a reporting tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('Generate a daily report with hours by project and workspace') directly contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (generating a report with two parameters), 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on output format beyond the 'format' parameter, behavioral traits, or differentiation from siblings. This leaves gaps in completeness for effective agent use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('date' and 'format') with defaults and formats. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the 'hours by project and workspace' output structure. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose: 'Generate a daily report with hours by project and workspace.' It specifies the verb ('generate'), resource ('daily report'), and key dimensions ('hours by project and workspace'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'toggl_weekly_report' or 'toggl_project_summary,' which prevents a score of 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'toggl_weekly_report' for weekly data or 'toggl_project_summary' for project-specific summaries, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of contextual direction leaves the agent without clear usage cues.

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