Show Action Plan Section

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations, such as project_id defaulting to procore_set_config when omitted and detailed failure modes (401, 403, 404) with their meanings, which are not present in the annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses labeled sections for View Parameter, usage guidance, and error handling, making it scannable. Every section adds practical value with no filler, and the formatting aids quick comprehension.

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 no output schema, the description sufficiently states the return type ('a single JSON object describing the action plan section'). It also covers error handling, required parameters, project_id defaults, and the API endpoint, providing a complete self-contained reference for this read operation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description enhances parameter understanding by explaining project_id's default behavior and id's requirement to identify an existing record with a pointer to the matching list tool. The view parameter semantics are largely duplicated from the schema, but the additional nuances for project_id and id justify a score above baseline.

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 Section' and further specifies 'Returns a single JSON object describing the action plan section.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from list tools by noting 'Use this when you already know which action plan section you want and need its full field set,' which differentiates it from sibling fetch/list 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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this when you already know which action plan section you want and need its full field set.' It also instructs to 'resolve it with the matching list tool first' when an id is unknown, providing a clear alternative workflow. The mention of project_id defaulting to the configured value helps the agent decide when this tool is appropriate.

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