freeagent_list_timeslips

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by noting that the tool returns per-project totals alongside individual entries and that the 'unbilled' view filters to uninvoiced timeslips, giving the agent a clearer picture of the output and filtering behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first sentence and adding relevant usage details in the following two sentences. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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 read-only listing tool with a rich schema and annotations, the description provides sufficient context: it identifies the operation, the date-range scope, a specific view mode, and the shape of the return data. It could mention pagination or limits, but the schema already documents the limit parameter, so this is not a significant gap.

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 thoroughly describes all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal semantic value by explaining the meaning of 'view='unbilled'' in context, but does not significantly enhance understanding of the other parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 lists logged time in FreeAgent for a date range, using a specific verb and resource. It also differentiates from siblings like freeagent_create_timeslip and freeagent_delete_timeslip by focusing on the listing operation.

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 context for using the tool (listing time in a date range) and gives a specific use case ('view='unbilled'') to find uninvoiced time. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclude other tools, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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