List time entries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the output shape, sort order, total hours, and plan-based read limits, which is meaningful transparency beyond a generic 'list entries' statement. It stops short of stating authentication, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only, though 'reads' strongly implies non-mutation.

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 deliver the essential information with no filler. The output format, ordering, total hours, and plan limitation are front-loaded in a compact, scannable structure.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description compensates by describing the returned columns and key behaviors. It is complete enough for a straightforward listing tool, with only minor gaps such as default range semantics when no from/to parameters are supplied.

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%, so the parameters already carry adequate documentation. The description adds no extra semantics about how from/to bounds interact with the default range or how limit interacts with total hours, so the 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 clearly states the tool lists logged entries and specifies the output fields, ordering, and total hours. It is unambiguous against mutation siblings like entry_add or entry_delete, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from export_csv or other read-style 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?

The description implies the tool is for listing time entries, and the free/Pro history limitation gives useful context about when results are restricted. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as export_csv or timer_status.

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