swsd_list_time_tracks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only that results serve as work-log context; it says nothing new about pagination semantics (which the schema carries) or auth needs.

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 filler. The purpose is front-loaded and the usage cue follows immediately, with no redundant restatement of the schema.

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?

With a rich output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is nearly self-sufficient. The only minor gap is that it never states the required object_type+id pairing for targeting a parent record, though the schema marks both as required.

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 100%, so all four parameters (id, object_type, page, per_page) are already documented with ranges, defaults, and the enum. The description's enumeration of parent types echoes the object_type enum without adding new syntax or constraints, 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (SWSD time entries) plus the scope of parent object types it applies to (incident, problem, change, release). An agent can distinguish it from swsd_log_time and swsd_update_time_track, which mutate rather than read time entries.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to reach for it: 'before adding/updating time when you need existing work-log context.' That routes the agent away from the write-time siblings. It stops short of naming those siblings or stating exclusions, so it is not a full 5.

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