list_time_entries

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: names/totals are filled in, per-day and per-project aggregates are produced, and it returns the identifiers needed to mutate entries, which is useful for planning a read-then-write flow.

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?

One dense sentence front-loaded with the verb and resource, plus a short four-word directive. Little waste, though the run-on clause list is slightly heavy for the amount of information conveyed.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not document return values, and the readOnly annotations cover the safety profile. It conveys scope (week/period), enrichment (names, totals), and the write-workflow hook, leaving little an agent would need before calling it.

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 every parameter (week, from/to, task, project, user, limit, offset) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or default details beyond that baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (declared time entries), with the added scope detail of week/period reads. It is clearly distinct from the write siblings (log_time, update_time_entry, delete_time_entry), but it never explicitly contrasts itself with the closest read alternative, `timesheet`.

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?

"Read before you write" gives an implicit workflow cue for pairing with update/delete tools, but no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance is given (e.g., when to prefer this over `timesheet` or `export_times_and_leaves`). Usage must be inferred.

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