list_time_entries

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

The description discloses pagination behavior (limit cap, next_offset) and clarifies the work_package_id format. These are key behavioral traits beyond the schema. However, no mention of read-only nature, error handling, or rate limits.

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 highly concise: one sentence for purpose, one for parameter detail, one for pagination. Every sentence is essential and front-loaded.

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?

Covers pagination and one parameter format, but lacks details on return values (no output schema), date format expectations, and other parameter types. Adequate for basic use but incomplete for nuanced queries.

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?

Adds meaning for work_package_id and limit parameters, but the other five parameters (user, project, spent_on_from, spent_on_to, offset) receive no additional explanation. Given 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates.

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 optional filters', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming the resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from other list tools.

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. The description only lists filters without mentioning scenarios where other tools (e.g., search_work_packages) would be more appropriate.

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