toggl_workspace_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the output format looks like (e.g., structured data vs. raw hours). This is a significant gap for a tool with potential API interactions.

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 with zero waste—it directly states the tool's function without redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, which are important for an agent to operate effectively in a server with multiple time-tracking tools.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying date-range usage, which is already covered in the schema. It doesn't clarify parameter interactions (e.g., using 'period' vs. 'start_date/end_date').

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 'total hours per workspace' with scope 'for a date range', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'toggl_daily_report' or 'toggl_weekly_report' which might provide similar time-based summaries, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 like 'toggl_daily_report' or 'toggl_weekly_report' from the sibling list. It mentions a date range but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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