Feuilles de temps d'une ressource

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond annotations: the month/year defaults to current values if omitted, and the return format is summarized as a list with days/hours and status. This adds transparency without contradicting the 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?

The description is well-structured with a clear one-line summary followed by a concise Args list. Every sentence is informative and sparse, with no unnecessary fluff or redundancy.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description provides a return summary ('Liste des feuilles de temps... avec jours/heures et statut'), which covers the essential output. For a simple read-only tool with three documented parameters, this is sufficiently complete. Minor details like pagination or sorting are not critical here.

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?

Input schema provides 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the parameter names, types, and defaults but does not add extra semantics like examples, constraints, or relationships beyond the schema.

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 the specific verb 'Récupère' (retrieves) and clearly identifies the resource type (timesheets/times reports) and the primary parameter (resource ID). It also distinguishes this tool from broader timesheet tools by specifying resource-scoped retrieval with optional month/year filters, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly states the context: when you need timesheets for a specific resource by ID, with optional month/year filtering. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it falls short of a 5, but the usage context is clear and not misleading.

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