get_time_entries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('Get') but omits important context such as whether entries are scoped to the authenticated user or all users, whether the date range is inclusive, and any potential pagination or ordering behavior. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.

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 a single sentence of eight words, front-loaded with the action and resource. There is no redundant or filler content; every word serves a purpose.

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?

This is a simple read tool with two well-described parameters and no output schema. The description is minimally sufficient but leaves gaps: it does not clarify the scope of time entries (e.g., user-specific vs. all users) or hint at the response format. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description could be more complete, but it remains viable for an agent to select and invoke correctly with the information present.

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% (both start_date and end_date have format descriptions). The tool description adds the concept of a 'period', which slightly clarifies the relationship between the two parameters, but it does not add substantive meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('time entries') with a scope ('for a given period'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_my_projects and create_time_entry, which have different resources or actions.

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 implies usage for retrieving time entries within a date range, which is clear from the parameter requirement. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_time_entry, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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