listTimeEntries

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by emphasizing that it returns actual time-entry records rather than aggregates, and by specifying the available filter scopes. It does not cover pagination or default limits, but the annotations carry the safety profile.

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 no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the alternative routing is packed efficiently into the second sentence.

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 description gives the essential selection criteria and explicitly routes to relevant siblings. It does not mention that all parameters are optional or how pagination behaves, but the empty required list and output schema reduce the need for that detail. Overall it is sufficient for correct tool selection and basic invocation.

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 coverage is only 43%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for project, issue, user, and date-range parameters by naming them as filters, but it leaves limit and offset unexplained. The schema describes only to, from, and projectId, so those two pagination parameters remain underspecified.

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 a specific verb ('Browse') and resource ('actual Redmine time-entry records'), and names the filter dimensions. It also distinguishes itself from getMyTimeEntries and getUserWorkload, so an agent can tell them apart immediately.

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?

It explicitly says to use getMyTimeEntries when targeting the API-key user without an ID lookup, and getUserWorkload when aggregates are needed. This gives concrete when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings.

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