List Cost Codes For Timesheets

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, which the description does not contradict. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it states the tool is paginated, returns a JSON array with metadata, and includes the API endpoint.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes relevant details like pagination and API endpoint without being verbose. Each sentence adds value, though the endpoint info could be considered auxiliary.

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 good annotations and 4 parameters, the description adequately covers the output format (paginated JSON array) and behavior. It does not detail the structure of cost code objects, but this is acceptable given the lack of output schema and the tool's straightforward nature.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage of parameter descriptions. The description reinforces the use of page and per_page for pagination and notes project_id as required, but adds minimal new semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 it returns a list of Cost Codes for Timesheets and explains its use for enumerating Field Productivity records. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like list_cost_codes or list_cost_codes_ids_for_timesheets, but the scope is well-defined.

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 guidance on when to use the tool (for paginated overview, finding IDs, filtering) and mentions required parameter project_id. However, it does not specify when not to use it or suggest alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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