list_time_entries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation ('list') without mentioning permissions, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. The description is adequate but lacks depth on potential side effects or restrictions.

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 extremely concise—two sentences plus a parameter explanation—with no extraneous information. Every sentence contributes 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?

Given the simple tool (one optional parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the main functionality and parameter behavior. It does not specify whether time entries are user-specific or scope of 'project', but this is minor. Overall sufficient for correct invocation.

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 has no descriptions for parameters (0% coverage), so the description compensates by explaining 'card_ref' and providing an example ('ON-914'). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema fields.

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 time entries, optionally filtered by a card reference. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('time entries'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'log_time' which performs a different 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 explains that omitting card_ref returns all project time entries, implying usage for reading time data. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., log_time), nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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