List time cards

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful behavioral context: results are newest first, crew sheets and employee cards are both included, and running cards have running true with no hours yet. It does not discuss pagination behavior or permissions, but the main state behavior is disclosed.

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 front-loaded and appropriately sized for a list tool. It repeats "newest first" in both the opening line and the following paragraph, which is a minor redundancy but not harmful.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the included fields and running-card behavior. It is nearly complete for a filtered list tool, with only minor gaps around pagination/limit behavior that are partly covered by the input 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 high at 83%, so the schema already carries most parameter meaning. The description adds a useful grouping by saying the list can be filtered by date range, project, or employee, but it does not add syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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/resource pairing: it reads the Contractor Foreman Time Cards list and states the returned fields such as employee/crew, project, clock-in/out, and hours. It also distinguishes the tool from get_time_card, which returns one card's entries per person and cost code.

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?

It clearly says to filter by date range, project, or employee, and it names get_time_card as the alternative for single-card detail. It does not explicitly cover when to use this versus other related tools such as get_clock_status or list_project_crew_hours, so it falls just short of exhaustive guidance.

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