get_running_timer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It's a read operation (safe, non-destructive), but the description doesn't state what happens if no timer is running — does it return null, empty, or error? It also doesn't disclose whether the assignee parameter requires special permissions to query another user's timer. For a low-context tool with no annotations, more behavioral context is needed.

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 clean, single sentence that fully captures the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded and concise.

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?

This is a simple read tool with good schema coverage (100%) and no output schema requirement. However, given there are no annotations, the description should clarify the no-running-timer behavior and assignee permission implications to be fully complete. It's adequate for a simple read operation but leaves important edge-case behavior unspecified.

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 100%, meaning the schema already documents both parameters (team_id and assignee) with their meanings. The description adds 'for the authenticated user' which clarifies the default behavior when assignee is omitted, but the assignee parameter's semantics of overriding that default is only inferable from the schema, not the description. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema covers the parameters well.

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 'Get the currently running timer for the authenticated user' clearly states the verb (get), resource (currently running timer), and scope (authenticated user). It's distinct from stop_timer and start_timer siblings, though there's some minor overlap with get_time_entry and get_time_entries that it doesn't explicitly differentiate from.

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 it returns the user's active running timer, and the assignee parameter hints it can query another user's timer. However, there's no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. get_time_entries, or whether this requires an active timer to exist. The usage context is implied but not clearly delineated.

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