list_intervals

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a 100-day limit, day-grouped output, and day-based pagination ('use page for older days'), which are key operational behaviors. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but for a read-only list tool these are the most relevant constraints.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the main purpose is front-loaded. Each sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description covers date range and pagination but does not mention alternative date formats (period) or available filters (tags, type_ids, type_names). While the schema documents these, the description is not fully complete given the tool's complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that `page` advances to older days and that results are grouped by day, complementing the schema's parameter descriptions and giving extra meaning beyond the structured definitions.

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 function: listing raw time entries (intervals) grouped by day for a date range, with a 100-day maximum. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_activity_types (which lists type metadata) and time_report (likely aggregated), using a specific verb and resource.

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 context (raw entries, date range, max 100 days) and hints at pagination for older days, but it does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives like time_report or say when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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