List tasks (time entries)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is settled before the description is read. The description does add something annotations cannot: the row shape ('decoded tracked time and whether it is currently running'), which is valuable given there is no output schema. It says nothing about pagination limits, result caps, or default filtering behavior, so the added context is real but thin.

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?

Three short sentences with the resource statement front-loaded and the return-shape note placed last where it belongs. The only near-waste is the filter enumeration, which partially duplicates the input schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 8 optional parameters, no required args, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, filterable dimensions, and the notable row fields an agent would otherwise have to discover by calling it. Pagination and default status behavior are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable at this complexity.

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 coverage is 75% and the schema already documents page, sort, filter, status, per_page, and the client_status enum values. The description's second sentence mostly restates those parameter names with no extra semantics (no ID format, no interaction rules between client_id and project_id), so it sits at the baseline rather than compensating.

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?

Opens with a clear verb+resource: 'List time-tracking tasks,' and the title disambiguates it as time entries rather than to-dos. It is distinct from in_get_task (single record) by the list verb, though it never names that sibling explicitly to reinforce the split.

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 states which fields can be filtered but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite/context, and no pointer to alternatives such as in_get_task for a single entry or in_list_projects for project-level data. Usage has to be inferred entirely from the verb.

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