clickup_time_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format ('compact array of time entry objects') and data types included, which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or the 30-day range cap noted in the schema, leaving gaps in 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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states purpose and filtering options, the second specifies the return format. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted words, making it front-loaded and appropriately sized.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the return format and scope. However, for a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, it could better address behavioral aspects like rate limits or authentication needs, though the core purpose and output are clearly covered.

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 fully documents all four parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning optional filtering by date range and task, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('historical time tracking entries for a workspace'), specifying scope ('both manually-created entries and stopped timers'). It distinguishes from siblings like clickup_time_current (current timer) and clickup_time_history (different historical view).

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('List historical time tracking entries') and mentions optional filtering by date range and task. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings (e.g., clickup_time_history), though the scope is implied.

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