list_project_entries

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

With readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false already provided by annotations, the description adds useful behavioral context beyond them: results are sorted newest-first, and each entry contains a type, free-text content, and timestamps. It does not discuss pagination behavior, but the safety profile is already covered by 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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, return behavior, and sibling routing are all front-loaded without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's summary of entry fields and ordering helps fill that gap. It lacks explicit pagination/embed guidance, but schema defaults and the embed token list cover some of that. The description is sufficient for basic correct invocation and selection.

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%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented page, perPage, or projectId parameters. The tool name and description imply projectId's role and the embed parameter has a schema description, but pagination semantics are left entirely to inference.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List timeline entries ... for a project.' It clarifies the entry types (notes, captured emails, completed-task records) and explicitly distinguishes the tool from list_party_entries and list_opportunity_entries, making the scope unambiguous.

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 use case ('what's the latest on project X?') and explicitly routes the agent away from this tool for party or opportunity timelines by naming the appropriate siblings. That is 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.