focus_list_time_entries

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

The description conveys that this is a read-only listing operation and emphasizes the mandatory date range and accepted formats. With no annotations provided, it carries the behavioral transparency burden, but it omits details like pagination defaults and result structure. It does not contradict any structured data.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and immediately followed by the key constraint. No filler.

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 tool has 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only covers the required date range and format. It does not mention pagination (page/per_page), optional filters (type, archived, include_taskless, task_id, time_block_id), or return behavior, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 description mostly restates the schema's required fields and date format; it adds no new semantics for the five parameters that lack schema descriptions (type, task_id, archived, time_block_id, include_taskless). With 55% schema coverage, the description could have compensated for the undocumented filters but does not.

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 identifies the action ('list') and resource ('time entries'), and constrains scope to a date range. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list other resources (projects, tasks, clients) and from get_current_timer or search.

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 states a concrete requirement (date_from/date_to) and date format, giving the user a clear context for invocation. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over focus_search or other list variants, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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