tempo_get_timesheet_approvals_waiting

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and 'Retrieve' aligns with that. The description adds the 'waiting for approval' status context, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as scope, pagination, or response format. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, resource, and condition efficiently, and the schema handles the one parameter.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional enum parameter fully documented in the schema, the description is mostly complete. It could add more specificity about global scope or return shape, but nothing critical is missing for basic selection and invocation.

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%, and the view parameter's description is already detailed in the schema. The tool description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable because the schema carries the full burden.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('retrieve all timesheets') and identifies the result state ('currently waiting for approval'). It is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like tempo_get_timesheet_approvals_by_team or tempo_get_timesheet_approval_status.

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 phrase 'currently waiting for approval' implies when the tool is relevant, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose it over the many approval-related sibling tools. No alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites are mentioned.

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