read_times

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

With annotations already establishing read-only and non-destructive behavior, the description adds useful behavioral context beyond them: it reads two different entity types (Time and TimeRecord), includes task records within a story, and returns both kinds when queried by person alone. No contradiction with 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states purpose and scope, the second states the return value, and the remaining sentences add necessary nuance. The phrasing is somewhat dense but every sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description responsibly explains return content and the two entry types. But with zero required parameters, it never states what an empty call returns or whether id and user act as filters or alternatives, leaving a meaningful gap for an agent deciding how to invoke it.

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 schema already documents id, user, and limit. The description compensates for the undocumented from/to by giving the YYYY-MM-DD format and optionality. However, it does not clarify what happens when both id and user are provided, or when no parameters are supplied, so its contribution is only partial.

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: 'Time logged on a card, or by a person,' and explicitly states the return value ('entries and the total spent'). This is precise enough to distinguish read_times from the sibling read_* tools. The later Time/TimeRecord clarification adds detail without obscuring the core purpose.

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 conveys the input modes clearly: card, person (or 'me'), and optional date range. However, it never names an alternative tool or explains when not to use this one, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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