Get Meeting Change History

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

The description adds significant behavior beyond annotations: it states the tool is read-only (consistent with readOnlyHint), explains defaulting behavior for company_id/project_id via procore_set_config, discloses error payloads with common HTTP statuses (401/403/404), and confirms return type as a single JSON object. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense but every sentence carries useful information: purpose, usage, parameter defaults, return type, error behavior, required params, and API location. It is slightly long but not padded; only minor redundancy with annotations on read-only, but 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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns, error handling, parameter defaults, and usage prerequisites. Given the tool's simplicity as a single-resource GET, the description is complete and leaves no critical gaps for an agent to invoke it 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config values, and that id must reference an existing parent record resolved via list tool. This goes beyond the schema's property 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 single meeting change history in a Procore project, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from list tools by emphasizing 'single' and 'when you already know which meeting change history you want and need its full field set.'

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?

Explicitly says to use this tool when you already know the target change history and need full field set. It also instructs to resolve the id with a list tool first, giving an actionable precondition and implicit alternative. This is clear usage guidance beyond vague description.

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