Show Timecard Entry (Project)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds that it returns a JSON object but provides no additional behavioral context such as authentication, rate limits, or error scenarios. Since annotations cover the key behavioral aspects, the description adds marginal value.

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 concise with three meaningful sentences and front-loaded purpose. It includes API endpoint and required parameters efficiently. The inclusion of 'Procore API: Project Management > Field Productivity' is somewhat extraneous but not damaging.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description only vaguely mentions 'Returns a JSON object describing the requested Field Productivity records.' It does not detail the response fields or explain why optional pagination parameters (page, per_page) exist for a single-record endpoint. This leaves the agent without enough context to understand the return structure.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description merely repeats the required parameters (project_id, id) without adding new meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. No additional parameter constraints or relationships are explained.

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 clearly states that the tool returns detailed information about a specific timecard entry. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_timecard_entries_project or show_timecard_entry_company, which could be similar.

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 provides minimal usage guidance, only saying 'Use this to fetch the full details' and listing required parameters. It does not instruct when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like list or update tools.

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