list_time_blocks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the inclusive date semantics, a max 92-day range limit, and the required blocks:read scope. It omits ordering/pagination behavior and result-size expectations, which keeps it from a 5.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the scope constraint precedes the alternative-tool routing. It opens as a noun phrase rather than a verb, which slightly weakens the front-loading of the action, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return fields, the permission requirement, and the range cap — enough to call it correctly. Only ordering/pagination details are missing, which is minor.

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 both date parameters are already documented as YYYY-MM-DD inclusive. The description adds a real constraint not present in the schema — the 92-day maximum span — which meaningfully constrains how the agent should call it.

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?

Names the specific resource (individual time blocks), the scope (logged between two dates), and the returned fields (start/end, duration, project, task, memo). It explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling time_summary, so an agent can pick correctly without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a clear routing rule: 'use time_summary when you only need totals,' which tells the agent when the alternative is preferable. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g., what to use for deleted or unfiltered blocks), so it is strong but not fully prescriptive.

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