Running timer

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

The description adds context beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations by revealing that it returns nothing when no timer is running. This is a meaningful behavioral detail not present in the annotations. However, it does not mention other potential behaviors like authentication or response structure, which are less critical given the annotations.

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, concise sentence that delivers the core purpose and the key edge case (stopped clock) without any filler. Information is front-loaded and every phrase 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?

For a simple read-only tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the necessary information: what it returns (the running timer and elapsed time) and the empty case. Contextual signals (annotations, schema) fill in the rest, making the description complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 both parameters (user_id and workspace_id), including default behaviors. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, but given 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to compensate. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as returning the currently running timer and its elapsed duration, distinguishing it from sibling tools like clockify_start_timer and clockify_stop_timer. The phrase 'The timer running right now' with 'how long it has been going' is a specific and unambiguous retrieval action.

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 implied but not explicitly stated. The description notes 'Returns nothing when the clock is stopped,' which gives a conditional behavior, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like clockify_list_time_entries or clockify_get_time_entry. No exclusions or alternative comparisons are provided.

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