List time entries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the bar is lower. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no pagination behavior, no note that limit is capped at 100, no indication of result ordering — but it does not contradict the annotations either.

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 zero waste and the resource stated first. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity means the freed space is not used for any useful extra context.

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?

For a read-only list tool with no output schema and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers what the tool returns and the axes it can be scoped by. Missing pagination notes are a minor gap given limit/offset defaults are visible in the schema.

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 coverage is 71%, in the middle band, and the schema itself documents from/to, user_id, issue_id, and project_id. The description conceptually groups those same filter axes but adds no syntax, defaults, or semantics beyond them, and the two pagination parameters (limit, offset) are undocumented in both places.

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 states a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('time entries') and enumerates the available filter axes, which matches the schema's filter parameters. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as time_list_activities or time_log, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the filter enumeration ('filtered by issue, project, user, or date range'), which tells an agent this is the read/query tool versus time_log/time_update_entry/time_delete_entry. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when NOT to use it, and no pointer to the alternative for activity types.

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