Списания времени

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. 'Возвращает' implies a read, but nothing is said about permissions, pagination, ordering, or what a time-log record contains for this listing operation.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Nothing is redundant with the name and nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the definition is minimally sufficient to invoke it. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the agent learns nothing about result shape, pagination, or ordering, which leaves gaps for a listing tool.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema coverage is 100% ('ID карточки' is documented in the schema), so the schema already does the work; baseline 3 applies. 'По карточке' in the description corroborates the parameter's role but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Возвращает) and resource (записи учёта времени) scoped to a card. An agent can distinguish this read operation from the sibling kaiten_add_time_log and kaiten_delete_time_log without opening the schema, though those siblings are not named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'по карточке' tells the agent this is the card-scoped time-log reader, so calling it versus add/delete is inferable. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives.

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