Show Action Plan Template Receiver

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

Although annotations already declare readOnlyHint, the description adds valuable context: it states 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore,' explains the project_id defaulting behavior from procore_set_config, and details common error statuses (401, 403, 404). This enriches the agent's understanding beyond 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 moderately concise and well-structured, front-loading the primary purpose. Each sentence contributes useful information (usage, defaults, errors, API endpoint). There is minor redundancy (e.g., 'Returns an Action Plan Template Receiver' and 'Returns a single JSON object'), and the project_id contradiction adds noise, but overall it is efficient.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return value ('Returns a single JSON object'). It also covers error behavior, parameter resolution, defaulting, and API endpoint. For a simple show-by-id tool with only 2 parameters, this is nearly complete; the only small gap is the ambiguous default/required inconsistency.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the two parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds usage context by noting that id must identify an existing parent record and should be resolved via the list tool. However, there is an internal inconsistency: the description says project_id defaults when omitted, yet the schema marks it as required, which could confuse the agent. This lowers the value of the added guidance.

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's function: 'Returns an Action Plan Template Receiver.' It uses a specific verb (Returns) and a specific resource (Action Plan Template Receiver), and it distinguishes itself from list tools by noting 'Use this when you already know which action plan template receiver you want and need its full field set.'

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 provides a clear context for use: 'Use this when you already know which action plan template receiver you want' and instructs to resolve the id with the matching list tool first. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives (e.g., recycled versions), but the guidance is clear enough for selecting this tool.

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