Time List Time Entries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that – it doesn't explain pagination behavior, ordering, or the with_suggestions toggle – so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; appropriately sized for a list tool. It is arguably too terse for seven parameters, but there is no wasted text.

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?

With 7 parameters at 0% schema coverage and a mutation-free list tool, the description leaves real gaps: pagination controls, with_suggestions semantics, and the ID types are unexplained. An output schema exists so return values need no coverage, but the input side is under-served.

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, and it partially does by naming the filter dimensions and specifying the YYYY-MM-DD date format. However, it says nothing about page, per_page, with_suggestions, or the int|string duality of user_id/project_id, leaving several parameters undocumented.

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) and resource (time entries) and states the available filter dimensions (organization, project, user, date range). It is clearly distinct from the singular sibling time_get_time_entry, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like time_list_approvals.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of pagination defaults, and no exclusions. Usage is only implied by the word 'List'.

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