Get Defect Header By ID

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this by stating 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' It adds substantial context beyond annotations: the defaulting behavior of company_id and project_id to values from procore_set_config, the requirement that id must be an existing parent record, and a detailed error model with common HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404). This is rich behavioral disclosure.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose, then flows through usage, behavioral guarantees, error handling, required parameters, and API endpoint. Every sentence carries essential information—there is no filler or redundancy. Despite its length, it remains tightly structured and easy to parse.

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?

With no output schema, the description competently fills the gap by stating 'Returns a single JSON object describing the defect header.' It covers defaults, error payloads, and required parameters. It does not enumerate the specific fields returned, but for a read-only header retrieval tool with good annotations and a known endpoint, the provided context is adequate.

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%, so the parameter descriptions already exist. The description adds value by explaining the id parameter must identify an existing parent record and should be resolved via a list tool first, and by noting that company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config values when omitted. These are not in the schema, thus enhancing the agent's understanding beyond the structured fields.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the header details for a specific defect document.' It explicitly says 'header details' and 'full field set,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_defect_by_id and get_defect_line_items_by_defect_id. The scope is unambiguous.

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 gives clear when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when you already know which defect header you want and need its full field set.' It also instructs to resolve the id with 'the matching list tool first,' providing a prerequisite workflow. However, it does not name the specific alternative list tool or explicitly state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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