List Timesheets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently warns about the risk of large data volumes and timeouts, which is critical behavioral context. It also explains that data is returned grouped by template, sequence, employee, and entries. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, but 'Get' implies this, and the warning about data volume adds significant 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 two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second is a concise warning. It is front-loaded, contains no redundant information, and every sentence earns its place. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 tool's complexity (16 optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides essential context: it warns about large data and recommends filters, and it hints at the response structure via grouping. It does not fully describe return formatting, but the schema covers parameters, and the warning addresses a key usage pitfall. Overall, it is reasonably complete for a list tool.

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 coverage is 100%, meaning every parameter has a description in the schema itself. The tool description adds no additional specifics about parameter semantics, only reinforcing the general advice to use date or employee filters. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters and the description does not add extra meaning.

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: 'Get timesheet data grouped by timesheet template, sequence (period), employee and individual time entries.' This specifies the verb (Get), the resource (timesheet data), and the grouping dimensions, which also distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_timesheet' that likely returns a single timesheet.

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 includes practical usage guidance: 'Warning: can return a LOT of data; always use date ranges or employee filters to avoid timeouts.' This advises when to apply filters and highlights performance considerations. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like 'get_timesheet' for single-record needs, so it falls short of full when-to-use vs alternatives guidance.

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