timedoctor_get_project

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. It states 'Get' which implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm non-mutating behavior, nor does it mention error handling, authentication requirements, or response format. For a simple get-by-ID tool, this is a minimal but acceptable disclosure.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is efficient and to the point, though it could arguably include a little more context without losing conciseness.

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 straightforward get-by-ID operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is mostly sufficient. It identifies the tool's purpose and required inputs (via schema). However, it does not specify what the response will contain or any potential edge cases (e.g., project not found), which would enhance completeness.

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% (both 'Company ID.' and 'Project ID.' are present). The description adds no extra parameter context beyond the schema; it merely references 'by ID'. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the action (Get) and resource (single Time Doctor project by ID). It distinguishes from list_projects by specifying 'single', but does not explicitly name the sibling alternative. It is specific enough for an agent to understand the core purpose.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for fetching a specific project by ID, but does not mention when not to use it (e.g., when needing a list, use timedoctor_list_projects). The context is minimal and left to inference.

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