tempo_get_project

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already declares the operation as read-only, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., not-found behavior, response shape). Since annotations cover the safety profile, this is a baseline 3; no contradiction exists.

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 containing only essential information. There is no filler or redundancy; it earns its place perfectly for a simple get-by-id tool.

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 single-resource retrieval tool with read-only annotation and fully documented parameters, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does and how to invoke it. The absence of an output schema is acceptable since the tool's return is straightforward and not described elsewhere.

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%, and both parameters ('id' and 'view') are already documented in the schema, including the detailed semantics of the 'view' enum. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so a 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 a specific verb ('Retrieve'), a resource ('a single Tempo Financial Manager project'), and the key discriminator ('by id'). This distinguishes it from the plural 'tempo_get_projects' sibling without needing to open either schema. The intent is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the word 'single' and the requirement of an 'id', which contrasts with the plural 'tempo_get_projects'. However, the description does not explicitly state 'use this when you have a project ID; use tempo_get_projects to list projects' or mention any alternatives. It's adequate but relies on inference rather than explicit routing.

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