alga_time_sheets_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the one genuinely new behavioral fact, that results are paginated ("one page at a time"), but says nothing about default page size, max limit, ordering, or result shape.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words; the pagination constraint is stated up front and the filter dimensions follow immediately.

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 seven-parameter, zero-required list tool with no output schema, the description covers the intent and pagination but omits defaults (page=1, limit=25, cap 100) and sort/order semantics that an agent needs to page reliably. Just adequate rather than complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description has to carry parameter meaning. It names three of seven parameters conceptually (user_id, period_id, approval_status) but adds no format, ID syntax, or default values, and leaves page, limit, sort, and order completely unexplained beyond the vague "one page at a time".

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("List time sheets") plus a scope note ("one page at a time"), so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not distinguish this from the closely named sibling alga_time_entries_list, which covers a different resource, leaving a small disambiguation gap.

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?

"Use to browse or filter by user, period or approval state" gives a usage context, but no when-not guidance and no named alternative for related listings such as alga_time_entries_list. The guidance is essentially a restatement of the available filters rather than a decision aid.

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