swsd_list_time_tracks

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false) already establish the non-mutating, safe profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds value by noting the tool's role as a pre-update context fetch. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description's modest behavior statement is sufficient. Credit for the 'before adding/updating' context orientation, though it doesn't describe pagination or return format beyond schema.

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, zero waste. The first sentence states exactly what it lists, and the second gives the usage context. No filler or redundancy.

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?

High schema coverage (100%) plus output schema means parameters and return values are documented elsewhere. The description supplies the missing contextual guidance—when to call this (before add/update operations) and what parent object types it covers. Complete for an agent to select and invoke.

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 100%, so all four parameters (id, object_type, page, per_page) are documented in the schema. The description adds the conceptual context that `id` refers to a parent record of the listed types, reinforcing but not extending the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clear verb+resource construction: 'List SWSD time entries for an incident, problem, change, or release.' The description specifies the exact entity (time entries), scope (parent record types), and distinguishes it from siblings like swsd_log_time and generic list tools. An agent can immediately tell what this 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?

States clear context: 'Use this before adding/updating time when you need existing work-log context.' This orients the agent to invoke list before mutation. However, it doesn't name the alternative (swsd_log_time / swsd_update_time_track) explicitly or provide exclusions/constraints on when not to use it. Clear but could be more explicit.

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