alga_tickets_time_entries_list

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive profile, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: row-level visibility depends on time-sheet read permission, and users without full read see only their own entries plus an aggregate total for others. The explicit 'not paginated' flag is also a useful disclosure about result shape. It does not quantify result size or state what happens for a ticket with no entries, but the core behavioral nuances are disclosed.

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 tight sentences with the resource scope front-loaded and the permission nuance second, which is the right order. The parenthetical '(not paginated)' is compact and load-bearing. No filler or hedging to trim.

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 and no parameter documentation, the description is the only source of contract detail, and it omits the shape of a returned entry (fields, whether duration is seconds or a formatted string) and how the aggregate total for other users is represented. For a non-paginated list tool this is a meaningful gap, though the access-control behavior is unusually well covered.

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% for the single parameter, so the description carries the burden and does so only indirectly: 'on a ticket' implies the id is a ticket identifier, but it never states the accepted formats or that the constrained pattern permits values like 'T-123:4'. Adequate to infer intent, insufficient to infer syntax.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Get the time logged on a ticket', which clearly scopes the tool to ticket-bound time entries rather than the general time-entry tools. It stops short of naming or distinguishing a sibling (e.g., alga_time_entries_list), so an agent must infer the boundary from the scope wording alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description never says to prefer this over alga_time_entries_list or alga_time_sheets_list, nor does it state prerequisites such as needing the ticket to exist or a permission level required to call it. The closest thing to guidance is the permission-based visibility note, which describes results rather than selection.

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