List Timecard Entries (Project)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' It adds valuable error handling details (HTTP status codes) and pagination behavior (response reports pages remaining), which go beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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 well-structured, front-loading the purpose before covering filtering, defaults, return format, and error handling. It includes API metadata (endpoint, category) that could be omitted, but it's useful context. It earns its length given the tool's complexity.

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 24-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, filtering options (via docs link), pagination, defaults, and error scenarios. It does not explain the response structure in detail, but the 'serializer_view' parameter is in the schema, and the link to daily logs documentation provides additional context. Overall, it's fairly complete for a read 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a note about project_id defaulting to the config value, but this contradicts the schema's required field and the description's own 'Required parameters: project_id.' This creates ambiguity about whether project_id can be omitted, lowering confidence. The description does not significantly add meaning to other parameters beyond what the schema provides, and the added default is problematic.

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 action ('Returns a list of all timecard entries') and scopes it to the current date with filtering options. It distinguishes itself from create/update/delete siblings by explicitly stating it's for discovering entries or looking up IDs before calling other tools. The title and description align well.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use this to discover timecard entries or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It also notes the read-only nature and required project_id. It doesn't name alternative tools directly but implies them, and points to external docs for filtering. Clear but not exhaustive about when not to use.

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