list-timesheets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves data (implied read-only) and lists returned fields, but lacks critical behavioral details: pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or whether it returns all timesheets or requires date filtering. This is inadequate for a read operation with zero annotation coverage.

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 sentences efficiently convey the purpose and returned data. The first sentence states the action, and the second elaborates on details. It is front-loaded with the core function, though minor improvements could include structuring the field list more clearly.

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, no output schema, and a read operation with potential complexity (e.g., large datasets), the description is insufficient. It lacks information on response format, pagination, sorting, or error cases, leaving gaps for an AI agent to use the tool effectively.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for not adding unnecessary information.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all payroll timesheets in Xero'), and specifies the scope ('comprehensive timesheet details'). It distinguishes from sibling 'get-timesheet' (singular) by implying a bulk retrieval, but does not explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list-payroll-employees'.

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 alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), filtering options, or compare it to siblings like 'get-timesheet' for single timesheet retrieval or 'list-payroll-employees' for related data.

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