List Timeslips

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists timeslips and supports filtering, indicating a read-safe operation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, or required permissions. The filtering details add some transparency but are insufficient for a complete behavioral picture.

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 at two sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every word contributes value: stating the purpose and listing key filter options. No redundancy or unnecessary text.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks important contextual details. It does not explain return data structure, pagination behavior, or query limits. For a list tool with many filters, users need to know if results are paginated or if all matching items are returned. This gap affects completeness.

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?

The schema descriptions already cover 100% of parameters with clear explanations (date format, enum values, etc.). The description's summary of filters adds no new semantic information beyond the schema. According to guidelines, with high schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate 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?

The description clearly states 'List timeslips from FreeAgent' with a specific verb and resource. It mentions filtering capabilities, distinguishing it from single-entity retrieval tools like freeagent_get_timeslip. However, it could more explicitly differentiate from other list tools (e.g., freeagent_list_tasks) by emphasizing that it retrieves timeslips specifically.

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 implies usage via 'Can be filtered by...' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., freeagent_get_timeslip for a single timeslip). It lacks 'when not to use' or context about pagination or limits. The mention of filters gives some context for appropriate use cases.

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