List time entries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention pagination limits, default time ranges, ordering, or that it excludes running timers. The word 'List' implies a read-only operation, but no additional behavioral context is provided, leaving the agent to guess about response size and filtering behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action and scope immediately, making it easy to parse. This is ideal conciseness for a simple list tool.

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 is relatively simple with 4 optional parameters and no output schema. The description defines the basic scope, but gaps remain: 'recent' is undefined, there is no mention of default behavior without filters, and pagination details are absent. For a list tool, an agent might need guidance on what the response looks like, but the schema partially compensates.

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 75% (start, end, workspace_id are described; page_size only has constraints). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The word 'recent' might imply a default time range, but that is not explained in relation to the start/end filters.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource 'time entries', clearly distinguishing it from other list tools by resource type. The 'authenticated user' scope adds clarity, though 'recent' is vague. It could be more explicit about whether it lists entries across all workspaces or a default workspace, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like clockify_create_time_entry or clockify_today_summary. There are no references to specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and description.

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