list_time_entries

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description's addition of 'detailed information including service and budget relationships' adds useful context. No contradictions. The description also notes the convenience of 'me' for person_id, but could mention pagination or sorting behavior.

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 concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose. Every word serves a purpose, with no fluff 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 provides a sense of the output detail (service and budget relationships). It briefly covers filtering with date and person_id hints. However, it omits pagination, sorting, or rate limit info, leaving some gaps for a list tool.

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 descriptions cover all 8 parameters at 100%, so the tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the note about 'me' for person_id (which is already in the schema). The description of output relationships adds context but not parameter-level details.

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 tool's purpose: to view existing time entries with detailed info, including service and budget relationships. It uses a specific verb 'View' and resource 'time entries', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_time_entry or delete_time_entry.

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 explains when to use the tool ('to see what time has been logged and to which projects/services') and includes a note about using 'me' for person_id when PRODUCTIVE_USER_ID is configured. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like create_time_entry for logging new entries.

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