productive-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation (implied read-only) and mentions default ordering and filtering, but lacks critical details: authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, error conditions, or what 'newest first' means precisely. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 well-structured and appropriately sized: a concise purpose statement followed by bullet-point parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. It could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating key parameter hints into the first sentence, but overall it's efficient and readable.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description does an excellent job explaining parameter semantics. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return values. However, as a list tool with no annotations, it lacks behavioral context like pagination or auth needs, and doesn't fully differentiate from siblings. For its complexity level, it's mostly complete but has minor gaps in usage and behavior.

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 0%, so the description must compensate fully—which it does excellently. It clearly explains all 4 parameters: 'after' and 'before' as ISO dates with inclusion rules, 'project' as name or ID filter, and 'mine_only' as boolean with default True for user-scoped results. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, making parameter usage clear.

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 resource ('time entries'), and specifies the ordering ('newest first'). It distinguishes from siblings like productive_log_time (create) and productive_delete_time_entry (delete), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from productive_update_time_entry (update) or other list operations. The purpose is specific but could better highlight uniqueness among siblings.

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 for retrieving time entries with date and project filtering, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like productive_find_project or productive_list_projects. It mentions 'mine_only' default behavior, which hints at user-scoped queries, but lacks clear when/when-not rules or sibling tool comparisons.

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