gorelo_get_time_entry

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It communicates a read/get operation but omits what happens when the id does not exist, whether additional permissions are needed, or what the returned object looks like.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a one-parameter getter, the minimal description is usable: pass an id and get an entry. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves unspecified the response shape and error behavior, so it is only minimally complete.

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 schema provides only 'id' as a required number with no description coverage, and the description's 'by id' largely restates that parameter name. It does not add guidance on where the id comes from, accepted formats, or any special value semantics.

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 'Get' and identifies the exact resource ('a single time entry') plus the selection criterion ('by id'), so it is immediately clear what the tool does. This also distinguishes it from the sibling list tool gorelo_list_time_entries.

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?

It implicitly suggests using this tool when you already have a specific time-entry id, but it never states when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling comparisons or exclusions are provided.

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