List time entries

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

With the readOnlyHint annotation already signaling safety, the description adds valuable behavioral details: newest-first ordering, the 300-entry per-call limit, and filter capabilities. It does not expose potential rate limits or pagination nuances, but the added context goes beyond the annotation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and ordering, then enumerates filters and the limit. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a read-only list tool with 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: listing, ordering, all filter options, and the page size limit. It omits pagination behavior (what happens when more than 300 entries exist), but the core functionality is well-covered for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 67% (4/6 params have descriptions), so the description partially compensates. It explicitly lists all filter dimensions and clarifies date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and the mine=true semantics. It does not deeply explain user_id/project_id, but theirnames are self-explanatory and the filter list is helpful.

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 'List time entries' with a specific resource and action, and adds 'newest first' for ordering. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_project_tasks, but the name and resource are unambiguous. A sibling-differentiating phrase would earn a 5.

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 clear context on how to use the tool: filters by date range, project_id, user_id, or only_running, and the mine=true option. It does not explicitly state when to use an alternative tool (e.g., get_time_report for aggregates), but the usage scenarios are well implied by the parameter descriptions.

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