list_project_entries

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds ordering (newest-first) and entry structure, providing useful context beyond 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?

Very concise: three sentences deliver clear purpose, usage, and differentiation. No unnecessary 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?

For a list tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers essential behavior (what it returns, ordering). Lacks mention of error handling or authentication, but annotations and schema defaults fill some gaps.

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 coverage is only 25%; only 'embed' has a description. The description does not explain 'page', 'perPage', or 'projectId' in detail, though the purpose implies 'projectId' is needed. Some parameters are self-explanatory given defaults, but more explicit guidance would improve.

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, specifying entry types (notes, emails, tasks), ordering (newest-first), and return structure. It also distinguishes from sibling tools 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 gives a use case ('what's the latest on project X?') and names alternative tools for party or opportunity timelines, guiding appropriate selection.

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