timers_list_timers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only says 'List active and recent timers' without explaining what 'active and recent' means, whether results are paginated, limited, or ordered by default. There is no mention of the return structure or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a list 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?

The description is exactly two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then giving a practical usage hint. There is zero redundancy and every word adds value. It is exceptionally concise.

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?

While an output schema exists (so return fields are likely covered), the description lacks critical behavioral context: what counts as 'active and recent', whether pagination is involved, or any default ordering behavior. For a list tool, these details materially affect an agent's expectations. The description is adequate but not complete enough to be highly reliable without additional investigation.

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 covers 100% of the parameters (name, child_id, ordering) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full explanatory burden.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'active and recent timers'. It also differentiates itself from sibling timer tools by noting its purpose: to obtain timer IDs for creating feedings, sleep, pumping, or tummy time records. This makes the tool's role unambiguous.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: when you need timer IDs for creating records in other domains. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear. It does not mention alternatives like timers_get_timer for fetching a single timer, but the primary use case is well-communicated.

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