Show Action Plan Item Assignee

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description reinforces with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: defaulting behavior for project_id, error HTTP statuses (401/403/404), and the need for an existing id. No contradiction.

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 compact yet information-dense, starting with purpose, then usage guidance, defaults, return type, read-only status, error handling, required parameters, and API endpoint. Every sentence contributes meaningful guidance without fluff.

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 single-resource show operation, the description is complete: it states the return type (single JSON object), mentions the endpoint and API section, covers required parameters and defaults, describes error behavior, and clarifies read-only semantics. With no output schema, this level of detail is sufficient.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining project_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted and that id must identify an existing parent record resolved via a list tool. This extra context justifies a 4.

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 it returns details of a single Action Plan Item Assignee with a specific verb ('Details of') and resource. It distinguishes itself from list tools by noting 'you already know which action plan item assignee you want' and from mutation tools by stating it is read-only.

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?

It explicitly says when to use ('Use this when you already know which action plan item assignee you want') and instructs to resolve the id with a list tool first. However, it does not name the exact sibling tool (e.g., list_action_plan_item_assignees) or explicitly state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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