Timer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behavior: start creates an in-progress TimeEntry and start/stop are writes gated by a confirm (preview → token) flow. It omits auth requirements, reversibility of a stop, and what a write returns, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences with the read/write split front-loaded and no filler. The 'preview → token' phrasing is slightly terse but still efficient.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action model and the write-confirmation flow an agent needs. It does not spell out that matter_id is effectively required for start (schema shows zero required params) or what status returns, leaving small gaps.

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 80%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema, including the confirm semantics and the action enum. The description adds little beyond mapping action=start to a matter and action=stop, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

It names a specific resource (the signed-in user's running timer) and the three actions it supports (status/start/stop), and explicitly says start creates an in-progress TimeEntry. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like clio_time_entry_create or clio_time_entries_list, so sibling differentiation is missing.

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 states when to use each action (status to view, start to begin, stop to halt) and tells the agent to pass confirm for writes, calling without confirm only for a preview. It gives clear operational context but no exclusion criteria versus the other time-entry tools.

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