List All Timesheets

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

The description goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true) by explaining the return format (JSON array), pagination behavior (page, per_page, pages remain), and failure modes with HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404). It also notes the project_id default from procore_set_config, adding useful behavioral context beyond the 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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, use case, default behavior, return format, pagination, read-only assurance, error handling, required parameters, API reference, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and remains well-organized without fluff.

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?

For a list tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the return type (JSON array), pagination mechanics, error behavior, project default, and even the underlying API endpoint. The filter parameters are already fully described in the schema, so no additional context is needed there.

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%, so each parameter already has a description. The description adds meaning beyond that by clarifying project_id's default behavior from procore_set_config and how page/per_page control pagination with remaining pages reported, which is not obvious from the schema alone.

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 opens with 'Return a list of all Timesheets for a specified Project,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It further clarifies the purpose by explaining it is for discovering timesheets or looking up an id before calling another tool, clearly distinguishing it from single-item or mutation tools.

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?

It provides an explicit use case: 'Use this to discover timesheets or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' This is clear contextual guidance, though it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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