Get Defect By ID

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds defaulting behavior for company_id/project_id, a prerequisite that id must resolve to an existing record, return type as a single JSON object, and concrete failure modes (401/403/404) with their meanings. This goes well beyond the annotations' basic safety flags.

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 long but each sentence adds value (usage, defaults, errors, endpoint). Minor redundancy exists: 'Read-only' repeats readOnlyHint, and 'Required parameters' repeats the schema's required list, but these are brief.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description clarifies the return shape (single JSON object with header and line items), error handling, parameter defaults, and id resolution path. It is fully adequate for an agent to select and invoke this tool.

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 covers all 3 parameters with generic path descriptions, but the description adds crucial semantics: optional company_id/project_id fall back to procore_set_config values, and id must reference an existing parent record resolved via a list tool. This enriches the bare schema.

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 explicitly states 'Returns the full details of a specific defect, including all header fields and associated line item information,' using a specific verb, resource, and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling list/detail tools like get_all_defects or get_defect_header_by_id.

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?

It provides explicit guidance: 'Use this when you already know which defect you want and need its full field set,' and directs users to 'resolve it with the matching list tool first' when the id is unknown. However, it doesn't name specific sibling tools for alternate views (header-only, line-items-only), so slightly less than explicit.

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