list_time_entries_for_client

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must compensate. It only states 'List all time entries' without revealing any behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or side effects. The optional 'top' parameter and its default value are not explained, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's 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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (not shown), return values might be documented there. However, the description is too brief, lacking details on usage context, parameter behavior, or any limitations. With 0% schema parameter coverage, more context is needed for effective selection.

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 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist. The description adds minimal value: 'for a specific client' implies client_id, but the 'top' parameter is completely ignored. No explanation of what 'top' controls (e.g., limiting results) or its default of 0.

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 action ('List'), resource ('time entries'), and the specific filter ('for a specific client'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like list_time_entries (which has no filter) and list_time_entries_for_project, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 usage when time entries for a specific client are needed. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, the context from sibling tool names provides sufficient differentiation. A slightly higher score would require explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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