get_time_entry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description conveys read-only intent ('Get') but does not explain behavior on missing IDs, error responses, or whether time entries have any special scoping rules tied to the team_id that the caller should be aware of. For a single-record fetch, there's minimal disclosure, though the read nature is at least implied.

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 a single short sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately minimal for a simple single-record retrieval tool, though it could benefit from adding sibling differentiation without much extra length.

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?

This is a very simple tool (2 well-documented params, no output schema, no nested objects), so the completeness bar is low. The description fully covers the purpose. However, the lack of any usage distinction from its sibling retrieval tools (get_time_entries, get_running_timer) leaves a gap in contextual completeness for an agent trying to select the right tool among a large sibling set of 100+ tools.

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 both team_id and timer_id are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but since the schema fully covers both parameters with clear descriptions, the baseline of 3 applies as documented.

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 'Get a single time entry' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating it retrieves one time entry by ID. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_time_entries (list) or get_running_timer, leaving ambiguity about the precise scope and how it differs from related retrieval operations.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_time_entries or get_running_timer. The description gives no context on filtering, prerequisites (e.g., needing to know the timer_id in advance), or scenarios where this tool is preferable.

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