Get Context By ID

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it returns a JSON object and provides the API endpoint, which is useful. However, it does not mention the optional pagination parameters (page, per_page) included in the schema, leaving their behavior unclear.

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 two sentences covering purpose, usage, required params, and API context. It is front-loaded with the core action. Minor inefficiency: the 'Procore API:' line could be integrated but is still acceptable.

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 read tool with robust annotations and full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It states the return type and required parameters. However, the presence of optional pagination parameters (page, per_page) in the schema is not explained, which may confuse the agent.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description only lists the required parameters without adding new meaning; the schema already fully documents all parameters, so the description provides no additional value.

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 'Retrieve a specific context by its internal ID' and names the resource (context) and action (fetch). Among siblings like delete_context_by_id and get_contexts, this tool is distinctly identifiable as a single-get operation.

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 says 'Use this to fetch the full details of a specific Document Markup records by its identifier,' providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like list_contexts or delete_context_by_id, but the required parameters imply ID-based retrieval.

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