Show A Project Inspection Template Item Evidence Configuration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying pagination behavior, return format (JSON array with metadata), and the exact endpoint. No contradictions.

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 four sentences, each providing essential information: action, usage, pagination, required parameters, and API reference. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

Coverage is good overall but the description has an inconsistency: the title says 'evidence configuration' but the body says 'Inspections.' No output schema exists, so the description should have clarified the response structure more precisely. It mentions 'full details' but is vague.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with parameter descriptions. The description lists required parameters but does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions page/per_page for pagination, but the schema already describes those.

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's action ('Show') and resource ('Project Inspection Template Item Evidence Configuration'). It also distinguishes from the company-level sibling. However, it confusingly says 'fetch the full details of a specific Inspections' which misnames the resource, slightly reducing clarity.

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 usage guidance ('Use this to fetch the full details of a specific Inspections by its identifier') and mentions pagination, but lacks explicit exclusion criteria or when to use alternative tools (e.g., the company-level variant).

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