list_project_entries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds ordering (newest-first) and entry structure (type, content, timestamps). It doesn't cover pagination behavior, authorization needs, or what happens with missing projectId, but the annotations suffice for safety awareness.

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 concise sentences: first defines purpose, second details output structure, third provides usage guidance and alternatives. No extraneous words, all information front-loaded and relevant.

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?

The description covers purpose, ordering, and entry structure, which is adequate for a simple list tool. However, it lacks parameter details and does not describe output format or limits (e.g., perPage max 100). With no output schema, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 adds no parameter details: it doesn't explain projectId, page, perPage defaults, or how to use embed. With low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 (case), specifying the types (notes, emails, task records) and order (newest-first). It explicitly differentiates from siblings by naming list_party_entries and list_opportunity_entries, making purpose 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 explicit when-to-use context ('latest on case X') and names alternatives for other timelines. However, it does not mention when not to use relative to the broader sibling list_entries, which could cause confusion. No prerequisites or required parameters are stated.

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