Get Time Periods

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by detailing the return structure (hierarchical array FY → H → Q, with fields gid, display_name, start_on, end_on, parent), which is not provided by annotations or an output schema.

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 concise sentences cover purpose, scope, return structure, and downstream usage. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or filler content. The description is front-loaded with the key verb and resource.

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 description explains the return hierarchy, typical fields, and how to use the results with goal tools, compensating for the lack of an output schema. It doesn't explicitly mention pagination or default workspace behavior, but those are covered in the schema. Well-rounded for a list tool with good annotations.

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 fully documents all six parameters. The description does not add significant new parameter semantics beyond stating the workspace scope and return fields, which are already captured in the opt_fields description. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool's verb and resource: 'List all time periods in a workspace (fiscal years, halves, and quarters).' It specifies the types and hierarchical structure, distinguishing it from sibling tools like asana_get_time_period (singular) by emphasizing the list-all behavior.

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 explicit usage context: time periods are used to scope goals, and it says 'Use the GIDs with asana_create_goal or asana_get_goals.' This is clear guidance for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives for single time period retrieval.

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