list_project_entries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes return ordering and structure but doesn't explicitly state read-only nature or any constraints. However, the name 'list' implies read-only, and the description adds value with content details.

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 three sentences, each adding distinct value: content/ordering, usage suggestion, and alternative tools. No wasted words.

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?

No output schema is provided, but the description specifies entry structure and ordering. It covers the tool's core purpose but omits details on pagination and embed functionality. Still, for a list tool it provides sufficient context.

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% (only 'embed' described). The description does not explain projectId, page, or perPage parameters, leaving the AI to infer them. With low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to clarify parameter meaning.

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 lists timeline entries for a project, specifies entry types (note, email, task), and indicates ordering (newest-first). It distinguishes from sibling tools by referencing list_party_entries and list_opportunity_entries.

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?

Explicitly advises using this tool for 'what's the latest on case X?' and directs to alternative tools for party or opportunity timelines, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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