getTimeEntries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'list' aligns with that. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation—no mention of pagination, date ranges, default limits, or response structure. Since the annotation covers the core safety, the bar is lower, but still the description contributes little beyond the name.

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?

A single sentence is concise, but it is underspecified for a tool with a rich parameter schema. The description front-loads nothing about key filters or output format. It is brief, but brevity here comes at the cost of usefulness, so it is not appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 large sibling list and the extensive query parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It provides no information on how to filter, the meaning of the format path parameter, or any usage context. An agent cannot infer correct invocation (e.g., which query fields are relevant) from this description alone.

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 0%, and the description offers zero explanation of the two required parameters (pathParams.format, queryParams) or the many optional query filters (from, to, user_id, project_id, etc.). The agent must rely entirely on the schema, which for arrays and enums is not self-explanatory. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema coverage.

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?

Description 'List time entries' clearly identifies the verb (list) and resource (time entries), distinguishing it from the singular 'getTimeEntry' and sibling create/update/delete operations. It is specific and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of filtering scope, required context, or when getTimeEntry might be preferred. The description does not help an agent choose among the many time-entry-related siblings.

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