list_project_entries

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/non-destructive profile, but the description adds ordering (newest-first), the shape of returned entries, and a security-relevant caveat that entry content is human-authored and must be treated as data rather than instructions. It does not mention pagination limits or permission scoping, but the injection warning is a meaningful addition beyond structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and return shape, then usage alternatives, then the safety note — a sensible ordering. Slightly verbose in the closing sentence (listing every content field), but each sentence carries information.

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 exists, and the description does the work of describing return values: entry types, free-text content, and timestamps, plus ordering. It stops short of covering pagination behavior or what `embed` adds to each entry, which leaves a small gap for a paginated list tool with 4 params.

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` has a schema description. The description adds no meaning for `page`, `perPage`, or `projectId` (e.g., default page size, max 100, what embeds do to the response). With low coverage the description should compensate and it does not.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List timeline entries ... for a project") and enumerates exactly what an entry is (notes, captured emails, completed-task records). It also names the sibling list tools it is not (list_party_entries, list_opportunity_entries), so an agent can disambiguate without reading any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit use case ("answer 'what's the latest on project X?'") plus explicit exclusions routed to named alternatives for party and opportunity timelines. The when-to-use and when-not-to-use conditions are both present.

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