Tracker status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description reinforces read-only status while adding valuable behavior the annotations don't: the exact response shape (`running`, `time_entry_id`, `since`, `minutes`, cumulative total) and the scope of 'the key's user'. It does not cover error/edge behavior when the tracker is stopped beyond implication, so not a 5.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the primary question (is it running), followed by return fields and the sibling routing hint. No wasted clauses.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does so precisely, listing each field and its meaning. Combined with the no-input and read-only statements, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly states it takes no input, confirming what the empty schema implies. No additional parameter meaning is needed.

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 names a specific resource (the mite time tracker) and a specific question it answers (running or not, and on which entry), plus the exact returned fields. An agent can distinguish it from listing tools or get_time_entry without opening any schema.

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 states the tool takes no input and is read-only, and explicitly routes the agent to `mite_get_time_entry` for full entry details. There is no explicit 'when not to use' beyond that routing, so it falls just short of a 5.

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