rm_list_time_entries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the scoping constraint ('across organization or filtered...') but does not mention pagination or the with_suggestions flag behavior. It does not contradict 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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the resource, action, and filter options in a way that is immediately usable.

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?

The description is adequate for a read-only listing tool with an output schema, and it covers the main filter dimensions. It is not fully complete because it omits the meaning of with_suggestions and does not describe pagination behavior, which an agent would need to understand the tool's full invocation surface.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry semantics for parameters. It clarifies that project_id, user_id, from_date, and to_date are filters and specifies the YYYY-MM-DD date format. However, page, per_page, and with_suggestions are left without semantic explanation, leaving a noticeable gap.

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 names a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('time entries'), and the available scopes ('across organization' or filtered by project, user, date range'). This distinguishes it from singular siblings like rm_get_time_entry and other list tools.

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 when to use the tool: whenever a list of time entries is needed, optionally narrowed by project, user, or date range. However, it provides no explicit guidance about alternatives such as rm_get_time_entry for a single entry or report tools like rm_get_report_rows, so routing relies on inference.

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