Show Timesheet Office Filters

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

Annotations indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open world. The description adds pagination details but repeats the inaccurate 'specific record' claim. It does not disclose that the endpoint returns a list of office filter options, nor does it explain error handling or rate limits. The inaccuracy reduces trust.

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 has 5 sentences but includes irrelevant and misleading content (the second sentence about fetching a specific record). It lacks a clear, logical flow. The first sentence is good, but the rest adds confusion. Could be more concise and accurate.

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 tool has 3 parameters and no output schema. The description fails to explain what 'office filters' are or the structure of the response beyond a 'paginated JSON array of Field Productivity records.' This is insufficient for an agent to understand the output format or interpret results.

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% with descriptions for all three parameters (company_id, page, per_page). The description adds minimal value by restating that company_id is required and that page/per_page control pagination, which is already in the schema. No additional semantics beyond the schema.

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 initially states 'Show timesheet office filters' but then incorrectly claims it fetches 'the full details of a specific Field Productivity records by its identifier.' This contradiction between the tool name (office filters) and the description (specific record) undermines clarity. The tool likely lists office filter options, but the description misleads.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative filter tools (e.g., show_timesheet_approval_status_filters, show_timesheet_crew_filters). Given many sibling filter tools, the absence of usage conditions or exclusions makes it hard for an agent to choose correctly.

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