redmine_time_entries

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists CRUD operations without detailing side effects, idempotency, authentication needs, or pagination behavior. The schema includes limit and max_pages, but this is not explained.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence listing the actions. It is well-structured and front-loaded, but could be improved by adding brief usage context without becoming verbose.

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 complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks information on return values, pagination, error handling, and required fields for create/update actions.

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 low (43%), so the description must compensate. However, it only lists actions and does not explain parameters like 'time_entry' object structure, 'query' formatting, or how 'action' dictates required parameters.

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 resource ('time entries') and lists the supported actions (list, get, create, update, delete). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'redmine_issues' by focusing on time entries, but does not explicitly differentiate from other time entry related tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., redmine_issues or redmine_paginated_request). No prerequisites or context for usage are mentioned.

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