list_project_entries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety profile is clear. Beyond that, description adds valuable behavioral context: returns newest-first ordering, and describes the structure of each entry (type, free-text content, timestamps). This is useful for an agent to interpret results. Does not contradict annotations.

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 sentences, each earning its place: first states what it does and the result structure, second gives the use-case, third routes to alternatives. Front-loaded with the core purpose. No waste.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is thorough: it explains the entry types, ordering, and provides usage guidance. It doesn't mention pagination defaults (page, perPage) explicitly, but these are standard. The return format is partially described (each entry has type, content, timestamps). It's nearly complete, missing only minor details like whether it returns full objects or summaries, but given the simplicity, it's adequate.

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 only 25%, with only the 'embed' parameter documented. The description adds crucial meaning by explaining the structure and ordering of entries, which helps an agent understand what projectId, page, and perPage do in context. However, it doesn't explicitly explain each parameter's purpose, but given the low coverage, it compensates partially. The baseline of 3 is raised to 4 because the description gives enough context for an agent to infer parameter meanings (projectId is the project, page/perPage are pagination).

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?

Description clearly states the verb (list), resource (timeline entries for a project), and specifies the types of entries returned (notes, captured emails, completed-task records). Differentiates from sibling tools by naming list_party_entries and list_opportunity_entries as alternatives for other timeline types. Very specific and distinct.

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?

Provides an explicit use case: 'Use this to answer "what's the latest on project X?"' and clearly states when to use siblings: 'For party or opportunity timelines, use list_party_entries or list_opportunity_entries respectively.' This gives clear context and exclusions, making it easy for an agent to select the right tool.

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