Tijdregistraties opvragen

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: each timestamp includes both raw UTC and local date/time to avoid midnight misclassification. However, it does not mention pagination, output structure, or any side effects. For a read operation, it's somewhat adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise, with two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose and filter option, the second provides a usage context. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 no output schema, so the description should ideally explain the return structure. It mentions timestamps include local date/time and that groupByDay groups results, but does not describe the overall response shape, error cases, or pagination. For a tool with 5 parameters, this is a moderate gap, though not severe.

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 100%, so all parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already there. It does not explain parameter formats or relationships beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool returns registered hours over a period, optionally filtered by user. It names the specific resource (time logs) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like board/list/item retrieval. The mention of handling local time zones further clarifies its purpose.

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 gives a concrete use case: 'Gebruik dit om te zien wat er al geboekt staat voordat je nieuwe uren voorstelt' (use to check booked hours before proposing new ones). It implies when to use but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it. Still, the guidance is helpful for an agent.

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