Project Timeline Tool

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds genuine value: result ordering (newest first) and the visibility rule that logged minutes are team-visible but never client-visible. That last point is ambiguous in phrasing but is real behavioral context the schema cannot express; no note on result size or truncation beyond the limit param.

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?

Three tight sentences with the payload description front-loaded and the sibling redirect parenthetical instead of a separate paragraph. The trailing sentence about logged minutes is slightly elliptical but still earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so by listing the result sections and ordering. Nothing critical is missing, though it does not say whether an empty history or missing project is an error versus an empty list.

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% and every parameter (days, repo, limit, project, session) is documented in the schema, including defaults and precedence for session vs repo. The description adds no parameter detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource and enumerates exactly what the call yields: recent updates newest-first, documents changed, contributors, and open blockers. It also names the sibling it is not (project_brief) so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either 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?

"Use it for what happened, day by day, or to write a brief" gives an explicit use case, and the parenthetical routes the one-call overview case to project_brief. Both the when-to-use and the alternative are named.

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