clickup_time_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states this is a fetch operation (implying read-only) and specifies the returned data structure, which is helpful. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error conditions (e.g., invalid timer_id), authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it's idempotent. The description adds basic context but lacks depth for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise list of returned fields and a summary of the return value. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 tool's moderate complexity (fetching a single resource by ID), no annotations, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and the schema covers parameters. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more behavioral details (e.g., error handling) to be fully comprehensive.

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 the schema already fully documents both parameters (team_id and timer_id) with descriptions on how to obtain them. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but it implies the tool fetches based on timer_id. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the parameter documentation.

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 the specific action ('Fetch the full object for a single time tracking entry') and resource ('time tracking entry'), distinguishing it from siblings like clickup_time_list (which lists multiple entries) and clickup_time_current (which gets the current running timer). It explicitly lists the returned fields (user, task, start timestamp, etc.), making the purpose highly specific.

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?

The description implies usage for retrieving a single time entry by ID, and the input schema's parameter descriptions provide guidance on obtaining timer_id from clickup_time_list or clickup_time_current. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use statements or direct alternatives (e.g., when to use clickup_time_list instead), though the context is clear enough for typical use.

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