Show Timesheet Project Filters

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds pagination details (page, per_page, pagination metadata), which is useful. However, the mention of Field Productivity records and 'its identifier' is misleading. The behavioral disclosure is partially helpful but tainted by inaccuracies.

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 and contains irrelevant or conflicting information. It starts with a different filter type and then jumps to Field Productivity records. Extra phrases like 'Procore API: Project Management > Field Productivity' and endpoint info could be moved or omitted to improve focus.

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 fails to clearly explain that this tool returns a list of project filters for timesheets. It incorrectly references Field Productivity records and a 'specific identifier,' which is not supported by the schema. Pagination info is provided but the core purpose is obscured, making it incomplete for an agent to understand what data is returned.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions. The description confirms pagination and mentions response metadata, which adds minor value beyond the schema. No additional semantic depth is provided for individual parameters.

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 is contradictory and unclear. It first states 'Show timesheet approval status filters' but then says 'fetch the full details of a specific Field Productivity records by its identifier.' The actual tool lists project filters for timesheets, but the description misidentifies the resource and suggests a single-record fetch, which conflicts with the paginated list behavior implied by the schema.

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 the many sibling timesheet filter tools. The description mentions Field Productivity records without explaining its relevance to timesheet project filters. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives.

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