Get running timer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does so well for a simple read operation: it states that the tool returns the running timer 'if any' (implying null when none) and adds a useful detail about an inactivity hint from .clockify.yml when configured. It does not describe error conditions or authentication requirements, but these are less critical for a non-mutating getter.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and result, and includes only the necessary additional detail about the inactivity hint. Every word earns its place.

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 simple getter with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool returns and the optional config hint. However, since there is no output schema, a brief note about the returned object's shape (e.g., timer ID, start time) would improve completeness, but this is not critical for a straightforward read operation.

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 only parameter, workspace_id, already has a clear schema description ('Workspace ID override.'). The tool description adds no further semantic detail about this parameter, so it adds no value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because schema coverage is 100%.

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's function: 'Returns the currently running timer for the user, if any.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like clockify_start_timer or clockify_stop_timer, and even from clockify_get_user, by focusing specifically on the active timer.

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 implies the tool is for checking whether a timer is currently running, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but the usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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