Listar actividades de time entry

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It signals a read-only retrieval operation and discloses the conditional scoping/fallback behavior. It does not describe the output shape or auth limitations, but for a simple list retrieval it is reasonably transparent.

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, the second states the only parameter's conditional behavior. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and invocation semantics well. It falls short of 5 because it does not specify response format, error cases, or permission requirements.

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% for the single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the omitted-parameter fallback and the project-scoping purpose, going beyond the schema's static 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 uses the specific verb 'Obtiene' and identifies the resource as 'actividades disponibles para registrar tiempo', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_work_packages or get_projects. The project-scoping sentence adds further precision.

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?

It clearly explains when to supply workPackageId (to scope activities to that project) and what happens when it is omitted (any accessible work package is used). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions, so it misses the top of the scale.

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