List TimeScribe time entries

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: result ordering (oldest first), a hard cap ('at most 500 entries'), and the meaning of the truncated flag with remediation ('narrow the range'). It stops short of describing rate limits or error behavior, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

Three sentences, no filler. The purpose and scope lead, the sibling comparison follows, and the truncation caveat is last where it matters for recovery. Every 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure needn't be explained, and the description correctly focuses on what the schema cannot convey: default range, result ordering, the 500-entry cap, and the truncated signal. Nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter (from, to, type, project_id) is documented in the schema itself, including the default-ISO-week pairing rule and the pointer to list_projects. The description only restates the range default, so the schema carries the load — baseline 3.

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 and resource ('List individual TimeScribe time entries'), scopes it ('work and break intervals that started in a date range'), and even specifies ordering ('oldest first'). It explicitly contrasts with the sibling get_time_summary, so an agent can discriminate without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit routing rule: 'Use for detail behind a total; use get_time_summary for totals.' It also states the default behavior when no range is supplied ('Defaults to the current ISO week'), leaving no inference required.

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