list_time_entries

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only states that time entries are listed and can be filtered, without explaining pagination, response format, or authentication requirements. The unsupported 'user' filter further undermines transparency.

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?

At two sentences, the description is brief and front-loaded, but the second sentence is redundant and inaccurate given the schema. It could be more precise by omitting the unsupported user filter.

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?

This is a simple listing operation with five optional parameters and no output schema. The description fails to mention return value shape, default behavior without filters, or how pagination works, leaving the agent with considerable ambiguity.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all five parameters, so a baseline of 3 applies. However, the description's mention of a 'user' filter introduces a parameter not present in the schema, adding confusion rather than value. It does not clarify how filters combine or pagination defaults.

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 identifies the operation (list) and resource (time entries), and notes filtering capabilities. However, it claims 'user' as a filter while the input schema has no user parameter, making the description partially misleading.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_time_entry, update_time_entry, or get_time_stats. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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