teamleader_timetracking_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'List time tracking entries' with no mention of pagination, return format, sorting, read-only nature, or any side effects. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the name already implies.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence: 'List time tracking entries from Teamleader Focus.' It is concise and contains no fluff. Yet it is slightly under-specified—it could include a brief note about filters or return behavior without being verbose—so it does not quite merit a 5.

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 five optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should at least clarify what the tool returns (e.g., all matching entries, chronological order, pagination). The one-line description provides none of that context, making it incomplete for an agent that needs to anticipate results or handle large datasets.

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 provides complete descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), including filter semantics like 'Filter by user UUID' and 'Filter by start date (ISO 8601)'. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter meaning, so it is at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's function: 'List time tracking entries from Teamleader Focus.' It uses a specific verb (list) and resource (time tracking entries), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like teamleader_timetracking_info (which likely fetches a single entry) and teamleader_timetracking_add (which creates entries).

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 implies usage: use this when you need to list time tracking entries. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives, no mention of the optional filters, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The one-sentence description does not offer any comparison to sibling tools, so usage is only implicitly conveyed.

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