get_time_entries_for_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose what is returned (the three entry types: manual, Pomodoro, Stopwatch), which is genuine added context, but says nothing about permissions, ordering, pagination, or behavior when no window is supplied. Partial coverage for a read tool with zero annotation support.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the scope (which entry types) and filter (task + window) are stated immediately.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry both safety and return-shape context. It covers the purpose and the entry types returned but omits permissions, pagination, and empty-window behavior, leaving gaps an agent would need to resolve.

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 coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents to/from/board_name. The description reinforces the 'time window' semantics of from/to but adds no format or boundary detail beyond the schema, and board_name is not mentioned at all. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (time entries) with clear scope qualifiers: all entry types (manual, Pomodoro, Stopwatch), scoped to a specific task and a time window. This implicitly distinguishes it from get_manual_time_entries_for_task (manual only) and get_time_entries_for_board (board-level), so an agent can route correctly.

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?

No explicit when-to-use statement and no alternative tool named. The scope words ('a specific task', 'time window') imply usage context, but the agent must infer the choice versus get_manual_time_entries_for_task and get_time_entries_for_board. Implied usage only.

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