List User Timelogs

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond annotations: return shape ('Returns array'), the unit of time_spent (minutes), and required date formats. No contradiction with annotations — 'List' is consistent with the read-only hints.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every clause earns its place: scope, return shape/units, input format, and cross-tool references. The date-format line is mildly redundant with the schema pattern, but it reinforces a critical user-facing constraint cheaply, making the description self-sufficient without a schema lookup.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately covers the return type (array) and the key unit (time_spent in minutes). Required parameters are fully documented by the schema, and the cross-references fill the userId sourcing gap. Minor omissions: no guidance on choosing between this and kaiten_get_card_timelogs/kaiten_get_timesheet, and no mention of what other fields the returned array contains.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by telling the agent where to obtain the userId parameter (kaiten_get_current_user or kaiten_list_users) and clarifying that time_spent is measured in minutes. The from/to format note is redundant with the schema's pattern, but the userId sourcing hint is exactly the kind of semantic enrichment the schema lacks.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('a user's timelogs across cards'), making the user-level, multi-card scope explicit. The phrase 'across cards' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling kaiten_get_card_timelogs, though that sibling is not named. Clear and unambiguous, but differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Provides clear operational context: where to source userId (kaiten_get_current_user or kaiten_list_users) and how to enrich results (card titles via kaiten_get_card). However, it never states when to prefer this tool over the close siblings kaiten_get_card_timelogs or kaiten_get_timesheet, so no explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is present.

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