list_timesheets

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses meaningful behavior: it scopes results to the user's own entries, orders newest first, and defaults to the last 7 days. It does not disclose potential rate limits or timezone behavior, but the core behavioral traits an agent needs are present.

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 tight and well-structured: a one-line core statement, a usage sentence, then an Args block. Every section adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 no required parameters and an output schema exists, so return-value details are already covered elsewhere. The description covers all parameters, defaults, ordering, and usage context, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for all five parameters. It explains date formats with concrete examples, defaults for from_date/to_date, the meaning of project and search, and the limit maximum. This fully compensates for the empty schema.

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 lists the user's own time entries for a date range, newest first, with a specific resource and verb. It is distinct from list_projects and list_activities, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling recent_entries, which could overlap in purpose.

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 clear usage contexts: use before writing an entry to avoid duplicates, and to answer 'what did I log this week'. It does not mention when not to use it or name an alternative such as recent_entries, so it stops short of a full 5.

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