Timer status

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that this is a read-style operation ('Show') and specifies what data it returns. It does not, however, describe behavior when no timer is running (error, empty state, or zeroes), which is a meaningful gap for a status tool.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler. The primary purpose ('Show the running timer') is front-loaded, and the additional details ('how long it has been running,' 'today's total hours') are packed efficiently into one clause.

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 zero-parameter read tool, the description covers the core return content adequately. The omission of the no-active-timer case is the main gap, and with no output schema available, the agent must guess the return shape when a timer isn't running.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to add. Per the zero-parameter baseline of 4, this dimension is adequately handled; no param documentation is needed.

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 names a specific verb ('Show'), a clear resource (the running timer), and enumerates exactly what the agent will learn: elapsed running time and today's total hours. It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling mutations like timer_start and timer_stop, which are clearly different operations.

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 intended use is implied well: an agent calls this when asked about the ongoing timer's state or today's hours. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over siblings such as entry_list or forecast, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., whether a timer must be active).

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