Show Action

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore' adds no new safety info. However, it contributes valuable behavioral details not in annotations: project_id defaulting to procore_set_config, the need for an existing parent record, the single JSON object return, and specific error codes (401, 403, 404) with their meanings. This goes beyond the minimal annotation coverage.

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 longer than a single sentence but every sentence contributes meaningful guidance: return type, use case, default behavior, error handling, and endpoint reference. It is structured with clear information blocks and avoids redundancy. It could be slightly trimmed but is appropriately detailed for the tool's complexity.

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 compensates by stating it returns a single JSON object with field set including attachments, action type, and custom fields. It covers input defaults, prerequisites, error semantics, and the REST endpoint. It does not enumerate every possible field, but that is unnecessary here. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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%, giving baseline 3. The description enhances understanding by explaining that project_id can default to the procore_set_config value when omitted and that id must identify an existing parent record resolved via the list tool. These are practical semantics not present in the schema, pushing the score above baseline.

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 details of a single incident action,' clearly identifying what the tool does and its scope ('single'). It further differentiates by listing included content ('attachments, action type, and custom fields') and distinguishes from list tools by focusing on a known action needing the 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?

The description states precisely when to use the tool: 'Use this when you already know which action you want and need its full field set.' It also advises resolving the id via the matching list tool first, which is a clear usage guideline. It does not explicitly name the alternative list tool or mention when not to use it, so it is strong but not perfectly explicit.

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