list_project_times_by_project

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and describes the return format (one-element array vs flat list with hours pre-computed). This is sufficient for a straightforward list operation, though it could mention permissions or limits.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence clearly states purpose and return structure, and the second adds parameter behavior. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 output schema, the description explains the return format and filter options. It also declares read-only status. For a tool with 5 parameters and no nested objects, this is fairly complete, though it could mention that projectId is required (already in schema).

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 each parameter has a description. The tool description adds meaning by explaining the 'flatten' parameter's effect on output structure and the filter similarities to 'list_project_times'. This goes beyond the schema alone.

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 the resource 'time-tracking entries for a single Holded project'. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'list_project_times' by specifying it works for a single project and mentions a distinct return format with 'flatten'.

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 context on when to use this tool versus 'list_project_times' by indicating it is for a single project and supports similar filters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the contrast with the sibling is helpful.

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