getMyTimeEntries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral context that this tool avoids the need to resolve the user ID first, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose anything about pagination, filtering behavior, or what happens when no time entries exist. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The core purpose and the key differentiator are front-loaded, and the alternative is named in the second sentence. 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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. The description explains the key behavioral nuance (no user ID resolution needed) and routes to the alternative. The only minor gap is that the description doesn't mention that all parameters are optional or that the tool returns only the current user's entries, but the purpose statement already implies the scope. This is complete enough for a read-only list tool with an output schema.

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 50%, so the schema documents 'to', 'from', and 'projectId' but leaves 'limit', 'offset', and 'issueId' without descriptions. The description doesn't add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does partial heavy lifting and the description doesn't compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('Browse'), a specific resource ('actual time-entry records logged by the currently authenticated API-key user'), and a key differentiator ('without first resolving their user ID'). It clearly distinguishes itself from listTimeEntries, which is for another user or broader administrative filtering.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: to browse the current user's time entries without resolving the user ID. It also names the alternative (listTimeEntries) and the condition for using it ('for another user or broader administrative filtering'). This is explicit when/when-not guidance.

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