list_time_entries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful behavior context by explaining special parameter values (issue_id 0 = ignore, user_id 'me' = API key's user) and date format (YYYY-MM-DD). However, it does not disclose broader behavior such as pagination, sorting, or whether the API key needs special permissions, leaving some gaps.

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 moderately concise and well-structured, with an opening sentence followed by an Args block. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the Args section somewhat repeats parameter names already present in the schema. Still, the explanations are valuable and justify the length. Each sentence earns its place.

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?

Given 6 optional parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which removes the need to describe return values), the description covers the essential filtering behavior and special cases. The main gap is the lack of clarity on whether start_date/end_date are inclusive or exclusive, and no mention of pagination beyond the limit parameter. Overall, it is adequate for a list tool with optional filters.

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 schema provides only titles and defaults for 6 parameters with zero descriptions, so the description's parameter explanations are crucial. The description adds clear semantics for every parameter: how project_identifier filters, what issue_id 0 means, how user_id interprets 'me', date formats, and limit as a maximum. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 entries, with optional filters.' The verb 'list' and resource 'time entries' make the primary purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_time_entry, but the distinction is implicitly clear: this lists multiple entries, while get_time_entry fetches a single one.

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: you would use this tool when you need to list time entries with optional filters. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as get_time_entry for a single entry or log_time for creating an entry. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, but the presence of filter parameters strongly implies the intended use case.

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