alga_time_entries_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds the useful fact that results are paged, but says nothing about default ordering, page-size ceilings, or how an agent should detect the end of the result set.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the pagination caveat follows immediately. Nothing in the text is redundant with the title or schema.

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?

For a 16-parameter, filter-heavy list tool with no output schema, the description covers the broad shape of filtering but not paging behavior, result ordering defaults, or what a returned entry contains. It is adequate to attempt a call but not complete enough to call confidently.

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?

With 16 parameters and only 38% schema description coverage, the schema leaves many fields bare. The description names the main filter axes (user, work item, dates, billable state), which maps to user_id, work_item_id, the date/time range pairs, and is_billable, but it omits sort, order, page, limit, service_id, approval_status, and work_item_type, so it only partially compensates.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List time entries') plus the pagination model ('one page at a time'). It does not distinguish this from close siblings such as alga_tickets_time_entries_list or alga_time_entries_get, so an agent must infer the boundary from names 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?

'Use to browse or filter by user, work item, dates or billable state' states the intended usage context but gives no when-not conditions and never names an alternative tool. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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