Show Action Plan Item Assignee Signature

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: project_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted, failure modes are described with specific HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404), and return type is stated as a single JSON object. This is more than just repeating annotations, though it could mention additional details like rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 appropriately sized for a simple read tool. It is front-loaded with the purpose, then provides usage guidance, behavioral details, parameter notes, and endpoint reference. Every sentence adds value: no filler or redundant repetition of the schema. The structure flows logically from what to when to behavior.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 required parameters, read-only, no output schema) and the strong annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, when to use, parameter defaults and prerequisites, return format, error handling, and API endpoint. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional context.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that project_id has a default value from procore_set_config and that plan_item_assignee_id must reference an existing parent record, recommending resolution via the matching list tool. This does not fully explain the semantic difference between the two parameters, but it enriches the schema descriptions with practical usage intent.

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 retrieves details of an Action Plan Item Assignee Signature, using the verb 'Get' and identifying the specific resource. It further distinguishes when to use this tool versus others by stating 'Use this when you already know which action plan item assignee signature you want and need its full field set.' This aligns with the show/list pattern seen among siblings, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Usage context is explicit: it is for cases where the specific signature is already known and the full field set is needed. The description also provides a prerequisite and alternative: 'plan_item_assignee_id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first,' and mentions the default for project_id via procore_set_config. This gives clear when-to-use and how-to-prepare guidance.

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