Show Action Plan Item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by disclosing the return format (single JSON object), default project_id behavior from procore_set_config, and error payload structure with specific HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404).

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 concise and front-loaded, with every sentence contributing operational detail. It includes the API endpoint and error semantics without unnecessary fluff. Some minor redundancy exists ('Read-only — it changes nothing'), but it reinforces the safety profile.

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 simple two-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description covers return type, default behavior, error handling, and API reference. This fully equips an agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret failures.

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 covers both parameters fully with types and descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by noting project_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted and that id must identify an existing parent record, offering resolution guidance via the matching list tool.

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 'Returns an Action Plan Item', which is a specific verb+resource statement. It further clarifies the use case ('when you already know which action plan item you want and need its full field set'), distinguishing it from list variants like list_action_plan_items.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('when you already know which action plan item you want and need its full field set') and instructs resolving the id with the matching list tool first. It does not list a formal when-not-to-use section, but the directive to resolve via the list tool serves as an alternative usage pathway.

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