time_list

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=true annotation, the description discloses that billableMinor is derived round-once from each entry's snapshotted rate and is never stored, plus the savedViewId merge-underneath precedence semantics. These are non-obvious behavioral traits an agent could not infer from the annotation alone.

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 dense sentences, each earning its place: the filter set and output totals, the business context, and the savedViewId merge behavior. There is no filler or repetition of the schema.

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 9-parameter read tool, the description covers the filter semantics, the computed output fields, derivation rules, and the saved-view interaction. With no output schema, describing { totalMinutes, billableMinor } is valuable; however, it omits entry shape beyond totals, pagination behavior, and how multiple filters combine.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the parameter documentation burden: it maps the filter dimensions (project, user, status, billable, unbilled, started_at range, savedViewId) to the schema properties and defines the ambiguous terms 'unbilled' and the saved-view merge behavior. Gaps remain: the required workspaceId is unexplained and the from/to mapping to 'started_at range' is only implicit.

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 states a precise read-model purpose: timesheet entries filtered by project, user, status, billable, unbilled, or a started_at range, with computed totals. It is clearly distinguished from the mutating time_* siblings (time_start, time_log, time_submit) by being framed as a read model and invoicing input slice.

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 concrete usage context: 'This slice (status approved, billable, unbilled) is B02 invoicing input.' This helps an agent know when the tool is relevant, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer a sibling read tool such as billing_unbilled_preview or billing_wip_report.

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