Get Basecamp Questionnaire

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe read-only behavior. The description adds value by specifying the output: 'Returns the number of questions and their URL,' which goes beyond annotations. No behavioral details contradict 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?

The description is concise with one sentence that front-loads the action and output. Every part is relevant, but it could be slightly improved by specifying the data type of the returned values or adding a brief note about usage context.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately indicates return values (number of questions and URL). It is complete for a simple get operation with well-defined parameters. However, it lacks mention of error conditions or potential constraints, but this is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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?

Input schema provides descriptions for both parameters (bucket_id: 'Project/bucket ID', questionnaire_id: 'Questionnaire ID'), achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional semantic information about parameters, such as how to obtain these IDs or constraints, so it meets baseline but does not exceed it.

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 tool gets a questionnaire (check-ins container) for a project and returns the number of questions and their URL. It distinguishes the tool from potential siblings like basecamp_get_question (individual question) by specifying 'questionnaire (check-ins container)', but does not explicitly differentiate from all siblings.

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 implies usage: you need a bucket_id and questionnaire_id to retrieve the questionnaire. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like basecamp_list_questions or basecamp_get_question. No exclusions or context for choice are given.

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