get-timesheet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves data (implied read-only) and lists return details, but lacks behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's idempotent. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: the first states the purpose clearly, and the second lists key return details. It is front-loaded and has zero wasted words, making it efficient for an AI agent.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and return details but lacks completeness for a read tool. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions or errors, and while it hints at output structure, it doesn't fully compensate for the missing output schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'timesheetID' fully. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format examples or constraints), meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 purpose with specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('a single payroll timesheet from Xero by its ID'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list-timesheets' (which retrieves multiple) and 'create-timesheet' (which creates new). It also specifies the scope ('single' vs. list).

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?

The description implies usage context by specifying 'by its ID' and listing details provided, which helps differentiate from 'list-timesheets' for bulk retrieval. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use alternatives like 'list-timesheets' or prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid ID).

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