List Timecard Entries

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

The description adds value beyond the annotations by disclosing the return format (JSON array), pagination behavior (page and per_page, with remaining pages reported), and error handling (HTTP status codes for common failures). While annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, the description reinforces this with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore' and provides additional operational details.

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 compact, with each sentence serving a distinct purpose: purpose, use case, return format/pagination, read-only confirmation, error behavior, required parameter, API and endpoint reference. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no 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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description reasonably covers the return type (JSON array) and pagination, plus error scenarios. However, it does not describe the fields contained in each timecard entry, which could be important for agents that need to interpret the results. Overall, it is quite complete for a list operation.

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% (all 5 parameters have meaningful descriptions). The description adds little beyond the schema, only noting that `project_id` is required and that `page`/`per_page` control pagination. This is consistent with the baseline of 3 when the schema already documents parameters well.

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 returns a list of timecard entries within a specified date range, which is specific and actionable. It also distinguishes the tool by explaining its use for discovering entries or looking up an ID before calling other tools, which differentiates it from siblings like `show_timecard_entry` or `list_timecard_entries_project`.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to discover timecard entries or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it,' providing a clear use case. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the intended context is well understood. The required parameter `project_id` is also mentioned, which helps the agent know the prerequisite for calling this tool.

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