op_list_time_entries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination behavior (page_size, offset, incomplete totals when page size is insufficient), default sorting, inclusive date boundaries, filter combination (AND), and the effect of include_comments. This is thorough and goes well beyond basic descriptions.

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 structured with a summary paragraph, an Args list, and a Returns section. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. While lengthy, the length is justified by the complexity (10 parameters) and the dense technical details.

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 tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: input parameters, grouping/summing behavior, pagination caveats, and the shape of the returned JSON. It also provides a natural-language example, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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%, but the description compensates fully. It explains each parameter: user_id accepts 'me', date boundaries are inclusive, filters are arbitrary JSON combined with AND, page_size affects total accuracy, sort_by has allowed fields, and include_comments controls comment output. This adds critical meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 produces a time entry report grouped by project with hour sums and totals. It uses a specific verb ('Отчёт'/'Возвращает записи сгруппированными') and resource ('записи времени'), and the example use case distinguishes it from sibling tools like op_log_time or op_list_time_entry_activities.

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 gives a concrete usage example: 'покажи время по мне за июль, сгруппированное по проектам'. This clearly indicates when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are sufficiently different that no confusion is likely. Lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance, so not a 5.

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