List time entries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds behavioral context by naming specific use cases, which aligns with the read-only nature. No contradictions.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and purpose, with no unnecessary words. Every part earns its place.

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?

For a read-only tool with 10 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary use cases and filtering dimensions. It does not explicitly mention pagination or result format, but the parameters limit/offset hint at it and the schema descriptions add detail. Overall, sufficiently complete given the annotations.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters well. The description mentions filtering by user, project, issue, date range, and activity, which maps to existing parameters but does not add new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Query' and the resource 'logged time', listing filtering dimensions (user, project, issue, date range, activity) and explicit use cases (timesheet review, billing/reporting). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like redmine_create_time_entry and redmine_list_issues.

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 ('used for timesheet review and billing/reporting'), making it clear when to use this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the use cases and sibling differentiation are adequate.

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