Get timeline data (piano-roll)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to assert read-only status. Instead, it adds rich behavioral details: exact fields returned (dates, fallback logic for startedSource, per-day rollups, board-wide data), and optional date filtering. No contradictions.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose and is comprehensive without redundancy. It efficiently conveys all needed info in a few sentences, though slightly longer than necessary.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description fully and explicitly details return data: per-ticket fields (createdDate, startedAt with source, completedAt, status/grouping/color fields, cumulative tokens, per-day rollups) and board-wide byDate[] rollup. This covers all expected output for a read-only timeline tool.

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 67% (from, to, project). The description adds meaning for 'from' and 'to' by stating they filter spans based on overlapping worked windows, which reinforces the schema descriptions but doesn't add new semantics beyond that. The 'project' parameter is not elaborated.

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 returns 'Per-ticket worked spans for the board's piano-roll Timeline view, in one read pass.' It specifies the verb (get), resource (timeline data), and scope (per-ticket), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like get_board.

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 sets clear context for when to use the tool (Timeline view) and mentions it's a single read pass. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it lacks full exclusions.

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