List time entries

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It correctly conveys a read-like operation scoped to the authenticated user and comments on the user-scoped config_root case. However, it does not disclose recency limits, pagination, ordering, default time ranges, or what the response contains.

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 only two sentences, no filler, and front-loads the core purpose before the operational config_root note. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is easy to parse.

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 covers the core action and a notable config requirement, but there is no output schema and no annotations to fill in behavior. It does not mention how to choose this tool over today_summary or how defaults behave when optional parameters are omitted. It is adequate but has visible gaps.

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 80%, so most parameters are already documented structurally. The description adds the context that config_root should be passed when the MCP is user-scoped, but it does nothing to clarify start/end, page_size, or workspace_id behavior beyond the schema.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Lists recent time entries for the authenticated user.' It differentiates the tool from create/get/summary siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with today_summary. The word 'recent' leaves some ambiguity about the exact scope.

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 operational guidance about config_root but says almost nothing about when to use this tool versus the many sibling timer/entry tools. No mention of alternatives like clockify_today_summary or clockify_create_time_entry, and no condition-based routing.

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