list_time_entries

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavior. It clarifies the work_package_id parameter format (internal vs display ID) but omits other behavioral traits like pagination, ordering, read-only nature, or required permissions. Significant gaps remain.

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 redundancy. The first sentence effectively summarizes the tool's purpose and filters. The second adds specific parameter format info. However, it could incorporate more parameter details without becoming verbose.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It lacks return format, pagination behavior, error handling, and sorting. The tool's complexity is not matched by the description's completeness.

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 0%, so description must explain all parameters. Only work_package_id is clarified; the other 6 parameters (user, limit, offset, project, spent_on_from, spent_on_to) are not described at all. This is insufficient.

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 the action is to 'list time entries' and specifies optional filters (project, work package, user, date). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_time_entry (single) and list_time_entry_activities (different resource).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_time_entry or list_time_entry_activities. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The description only implies usage for listing with filters.

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