Show Timecard Entry (Project)

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent, but the description adds concrete failure modes (401/403/404), notes the read-only guarantee ('changes nothing in Procore'), and documents the project_id default from procore_set_config. This is valuable behavioral context beyond the structured 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?

Five sentences cover use case, prerequisites, defaults, return shape, errors, and API location. No filler; every sentence carries functional information.

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?

No output schema, so the description must at least indicate return type; it says 'Returns a single JSON object describing the timecard entry.' It also covers prerequisites, errors, and endpoint. It doesn't enumerate fields, but for a show tool on a known entity this is adequate. The project_id default caveat aside, the tool is well-contextualized.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds helpful meaning: id must reference an existing record to be resolved via the list tool, and project_id defaults to the configured value when omitted. However, this last point slightly conflicts with the schema's required-project_id declaration, so it's not a fully clean enhancement.

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?

Description clearly states 'Return detailed information about a specific timecard entry' — a specific verb + resource + scope. The title and endpoint make the project scope explicit, distinguishing it from list/company variants. It also frames when it's appropriate ('when you already know which timecard entry you want').

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this when you already know which timecard entry you want' and instructs to 'resolve it with the matching list tool first,' giving clear guidance against using this before identifying the record. It doesn't explicitly contrast with company-scoped siblings (e.g., show_timecard_entry_company), but the project context is clear from title and endpoint.

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