get_person

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb 'Get' reasonably implies a non-mutating read, but the description does not confirm read-only semantics, state what happens when the ID is not found, or describe auth requirements or the return shape.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler content. Every element (verb, resource, cardinality, scope, lookup key) 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 simple single-record fetch the definition is serviceable, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should at minimum confirm the read-only nature and note not-found behavior. The scope detail ('Basecamp 2 account') is the main compensating element.

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 coverage is 100% for the single person_id parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description's 'by ID' adds no format, range, or sourcing detail beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for a fully covered single parameter.

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 states a specific verb (get), resource (person), and scope (single record in the Basecamp 2 account, by ID), which clearly separates it from list_people. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_me, which also returns a person-like resource, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'by ID' implies the tool is used when the caller already has a person identifier, which is useful context. However, no alternative is named and no condition for choosing get_person over list_people or get_me is given, leaving usage to inference.

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