Show Timecard Entry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. Description adds 'Returns a JSON object' and API endpoint, but no additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Some repetition between first and second sentence (both mention fetching details). Could be slightly tightened but overall efficient.

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?

Missing explanation for pagination parameters (page, per_page) which are included in schema but seem inconsistent with a 'show' operation for a specific entry. No mention of return format or error handling. Incomplete for a tool with no output 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 100%. Description adds context: identifies 'id' as URL path parameter, 'project_id' as query string parameter, and marks them as required. This adds value beyond the schema's generic descriptions.

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?

Clearly indicates 'Return detailed information about a specific Timecard Entry', with verb+resource. Slight inconsistency in calling it 'Field Productivity records' but still understandable. Distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'by its identifier' and requiring project_id.

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?

States 'Use this to fetch the full details... by its identifier' implying usage context. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives. Given the many sibling 'show_*' tools, some guidance on differentiation would help.

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