Get Context By ID

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

Beyond the annotations, the description explicitly states the tool is read-only and changes nothing, and it details failure modes with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404). It also clarifies the defaulting of company_id/project_id, adding meaningful behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 dense paragraph covering purpose, usage, defaults, return, side effects, errors, and endpoint. It is longer than strictly necessary but every sentence carries relevant information, with only minor redundancy (e.g., repeating required parameters already in the schema).

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains the return type ('single JSON object'), notes the read-only nature, describes common error outcomes, and provides the API version, category, and full endpoint. It also gives a prerequisite (resolve context_id with a list tool), making the tool self-contained enough for an agent to use correctly.

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% with basic descriptions, and the description adds important semantics: company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config values when omitted, and context_id must reference an existing parent record resolved via a list tool. This goes beyond the schema's minimal 'URL path parameter' descriptions.

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 retrieves a specific context by its internal ID and returns its full field set. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the 'when you already know which context you want' phrasing implicitly differentiates it from list tools.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('already know which context you want and need its full field set') and instructs resolving context_id with a list tool first. It also explains the defaulting behavior for company_id and project_id via procore_set_config, which is useful context for invocation.

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