clokio_list_time_entries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the filtering capability, but this is already captured in the schema. There is no additional behavioral context like pagination, response format, or default limits. Since annotations cover safety, a 3 is appropriate – the description adds minimal value beyond the annotations.

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, concise sentence with no filler words. It communicates the core purpose and key parameters immediately. Every word earns its place, and the filtering capability is front-loaded after the main action. This is an excellent example of brevity.

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 simple read-only list tool with all parameters optional and no output schema, the description is adequate. It conveys the action, the resource, and the available filters. The absence of details like default date range behavior or return format is a minor gap, but given the low complexity and the annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete. A 4 is appropriate.

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 67% (two of three parameters have descriptions). The description explicitly mentions 'employee_code and date range,' which maps to the start_date and end_date parameters, giving some semantic context. However, it does not add detail beyond the schema, and the employee_code parameter lacks a schema description but is named in the tool description. With coverage above 50%, the baseline of 3 is correct; the description partially compensates for the missing employee_code schema description.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List time-tracking entries.' It clearly identifies the operation and the entity. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling list tools, but the resource type is distinct enough that it stands on its own. A 4 is appropriate because it lacks explicit distinction from other list-type 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?

The description implies usage context through the mention of filtering by employee_code and date range, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like attendance tools or project list tools. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations. The usage is clear from the resource type, but not explicitly stated.

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