Get Time Tracking Entries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing the return shape (array of entry objects with gid, duration_minutes, entered_on, created_by) and a workspace prerequisite. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 three concise sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second describes the return object, and the third gives a critical prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 straightforward read-only list tool, the description covers purpose, return format, and a key prerequisite. The schema handles pagination parameters, so the lack of explicit pagination detail is acceptable. It does not describe edge cases like empty results or partial pagination, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 input schema has 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for all four parameters (limit, offset, task_gid, opt_fields), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add substantial parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, only referencing task and return fields.

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 uses a specific verb-resource-object construction: "List all time tracking entries logged for a task," which clearly distinguishes it from singular get, create, update, and delete time-tracking siblings. It also explicitly names the target object (task) and the information returned.

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 clear usage context: it is for listing time tracking entries for a task, and it notes the prerequisite that time tracking must be enabled. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like get_time_tracking_entry, so it stops short of a 5, but the context is unambiguous.

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