toggl_get_time_entries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that entries are 'hydrated' with project/workspace names, which adds some context about the return format. However, it lacks critical details such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or error handling. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of two clear sentences. The first sentence states the core functionality and filters, while the second explains the return format. There is no wasted language, and every sentence adds value, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is somewhat incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and return format but misses behavioral details like read-only nature, error cases, or pagination. Without an output schema, the description should ideally elaborate more on the return structure, but it does mention hydration, which helps. It's adequate for a simple retrieval tool but leaves gaps for robust agent usage.

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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying date range filtering and hydration of results, but it doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., that 'period' might override 'start_date'/'end_date') or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get time entries with optional date range filters.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('time entries'), and mentions the return format ('hydrated entries with project/workspace names'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'toggl_daily_report' or 'toggl_weekly_report', which might also retrieve time-related data, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this versus those alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools. It mentions optional filters but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or alternatives. For example, it doesn't compare to 'toggl_daily_report' or 'toggl_weekly_report', which might offer aggregated views, leaving the agent to infer usage based on parameter names alone.

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