List time entries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral insight beyond annotations by explaining the default financial-year scoping and the need for explicit filter overrides, which is valuable for correct invocation. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states purpose, and the second provides two important behavioral caveats. Every clause earns its place and the key default behavior is front-loaded.

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 zero required parameters and schema already covering all five parameters, the description addresses the main non-obvious traps: default time scope and active timers. The lack of an output schema is not a gap for a list tool, though an explicit pointer to get_time_entry for single entries would make it fully 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented, but the description enriches the filter semantics by explaining the default behavior and how to use period and include_active to alter it. This goes beyond raw syntax and helps an agent understand practical usage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'List tracked time,' which exactly matches the tool's purpose and clearly differentiates it from the sibling get_time_entry. It adds a useful scoping note about the default financial year, further clarifying what the tool does.

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 gives concrete operational guidance: without a filter the API returns the current financial year, so users should pass an explicit period to look further back, and include_active:true to include running timers. It does not explicitly mention get_time_entry as the alternative for retrieving a single entry, but the context for choosing this tool and its filters is clear.

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