Show Action Plan Item Assignee Signature

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns 'a paginated JSON array of Action Plans', but this seems inconsistent with the single-signature resource and may mislead about pagination behavior. It does not describe other behavioral traits like authorization needs or rate limits beyond what annotations already cover.

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 contains contradictory statements and unnecessary details like Procore API path and endpoint. It is not concise; every sentence should earn its place, but here the extra information detracts from clarity.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description should describe the return value. It inaccurately states 'Returns a paginated JSON array of Action Plans', which is likely wrong for a single-signature retrieval. It also does not explain the response structure or fields, making it incomplete and misleading.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The description mentions required parameters (project_id, plan_item_assignee_id) and pagination controls (page, per_page), but adds little semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Get the details of an Action Plan Item Assignee Signature', which is clear. However, it then contradicts itself by saying 'fetch the full details of a specific Action Plans by its identifier' and 'Returns a paginated JSON array of Action Plans', which suggests a different resource (Action Plans) and a list response, not a signature. This makes the purpose confusing and misleading.

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 says 'Use this to fetch the full details of a specific Action Plans by its identifier', but it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like show_action_plan_item_assignee or create_action_plan_item_assignee_signature. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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