Runn: list actuals

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it lists entries and can be filtered, but does not mention pagination behavior (limit, cursor, fetchAll), whether filters combine with AND/OR, or any default ordering. It also does not indicate potential side effects or performance characteristics. The description is minimal and hides significant behavioral details.

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, efficiently structured sentence that front-loads the action ('List') and resource ('actual (timesheet) entries') before listing filters. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant detail 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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and filters but omits pagination behavior, ordering, and usage context. It is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does, but not fully complete for complex invocation scenarios such as handling large result sets or understanding default limits.

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 56%, so the description partially compensates by naming the filterable fields. However, it only repeats the parameter names (project, person, role, workstream) without explaining semantics like whether multiple IDs are allowed or how dates are inclusive (which the schema does partially). It adds marginal clarity over the property names but does not deeply explain parameter relationships or format beyond identifiers.

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 tool's purpose: 'List actual (timesheet) entries' with specific filter dimensions (project, person, role, workstream, date range). This is a specific verb+resource definition that distinguishes it from sibling reporting tools like runn_report_hours_* or runn_bulk_actuals, which are either aggregate/reporting or mutation 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that runn_report_hours_* are aggregate reports, that runn_bulk_actuals creates/updates actuals, or when a filtered list is preferred. There is no explicit when-to-use, exclusions, or alternatives.

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