Show Recent Timecard Entry Wbs Code Ids (DEPRECATED)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the response is a paginated JSON array with pagination metadata, which is useful but does not significantly enhance behavioral understanding beyond annotations.

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 not concise; it combines a deprecation notice with likely erroneous content about Field Productivity records, causing confusion. The information is not front-loaded effectively, and some sentences seem misplaced.

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?

The description does not explain what wbs_code_ids are or the format of the data, nor does it clarify the endpoint's scope among many sibling tools. The mention of Field Productivity records is misleading. Without an output schema, the description should provide more detail on the return value.

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%, but the description adds context by stating 'Required parameters: project_id' and explaining pagination usage ('Use page and per_page to control pagination; the response includes pagination metadata'), which aids the agent beyond 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 states it shows recent timecard entry wbs_code_ids but then contradicts by saying it fetches Field Productivity records, creating ambiguity. The verb 'show' is clear but the resource is muddied. No differentiation from siblings is provided.

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?

Explicitly marks the tool as deprecated and provides an alternative endpoint ('use /rest/v1.0/.../recent_ids instead!'), which gives clear guidance to prefer another tool. However, it also includes a potentially misleading usage statement about fetching field productivity records.

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