everhour_list_all_sections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the operation iterates through all projects, which signals potential cost, and mentions pagination/search, adding useful behavior beyond the schema. It doesn't explicitly label it as read-only, but 'list' strongly implies non-mutating.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with no redundant details. The description is efficient and well-structured.

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 operation with optional pagination params and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior. It could mention what a response looks like, but given the simplicity and lack of an output schema, this is sufficient.

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 100%, with each parameter already documented clearly. The description's mention of pagination and search adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb-resource combination ('List all sections') and clarifies the scope by noting it iterates through all projects, distinguishing it from the singular 'get_section' tool and other section-related tools.

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?

It clearly implies this is the comprehensive listing tool for all sections, mentioning pagination for large data sets, but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over get_section or other list tools. The context is clear enough for an agent to select it when a full enumeration is needed.

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