Show Action Plan

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

The description enriches the existing annotations by detailing error responses (401/403/404), return format (single JSON object), and the project_id default behavior from procore_set_config. The read-only statement is redundant with annotations but consistent, and the failure-mode details go beyond what annotations convey.

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 logically structured: purpose, usage, defaults, return type, read-only note, error handling, required params, and API endpoint. It is longer than the ideal two-sentence example, but every sentence adds relevant information and the key facts are front-loaded.

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?

For a read-only show tool without an output schema, it covers purpose, prerequisites, error handling, and API context. The internal contradiction about project_id being both required and defaultable is a notable gap, but overall the description is thorough and actionable for an agent.

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?

The schema descriptions are generic ('URL path parameter — unique identifier'), but the description adds context about project_id defaulting and id needing to reference an existing record. However, the statement that project_id can be omitted contradicts the schema's required field flag, creating confusion and somewhat undermining the added value.

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 begins with 'Details of a single Action Plan,' using a clear verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from list operations. It further differentiates itself by stating 'when you already know which action plan you want and need its full field set,' which separates it from sibling list and show tools.

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 states when to use the tool ('when you already know which action plan you want') and provides an alternative by telling users to 'resolve it with the matching list tool first.' This gives clear practical guidance on tool selection.

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