toggl_time_entries

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'Get Toggl time entries.' It does not disclose that the tool requires authentication (implied by api_key parameter), whether it is read-only, any rate limits, or the return format. With zero annotation coverage, the description carries the full burden but fails to provide meaningful behavioral context.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words, achieving maximum conciseness. However, it is under-specified for a tool with three parameters and no schema descriptions. Still, the format is clean 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?

Given the complexity of the tool (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is completely inadequate. It omits authentication requirements, date range semantics, expected output, and any behavioral details. An agent would have insufficient information to use the tool 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds nothing about the three parameters (start_date, end_date, api_key). While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not clarify that api_key is for authentication, expected date format, or that dates might be optional. This forces the agent to guess critical usage details.

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 'Get Toggl time entries' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Toggl time entries'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like toggl_create_time_entry (create), toggl_projects (projects), and toggl_summary (summary). It directly states what the tool does.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like toggl_summary or toggl_projects. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., need for api_key) or the scope of data returned (e.g., all entries or date-filtered). The agent is left with only the tool name for context.

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