Show App Configuration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint: false, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: company_id defaults from procore_set_config, id must identify an existing parent record, failures return HTTP status errors (401/403/404), and the endpoint is GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/app_configurations/{id}. No contradiction with 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 longer than minimal but every section carries value: purpose, usage, defaults, id resolution, return type, read-only note, error semantics, required parameters, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the purpose and well-structured, though the API reference line could be trimmed without losing essential guidance.

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 compensates by explicitly stating 'Returns a single JSON object describing the app configuration.' It covers input semantics, default behavior, error scenarios, and endpoint details. This is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning: company_id can default to procore_set_config value, and id must resolve to an existing parent record. However, there is a slight contradiction: schema lists company_id as required while the description says it can be omitted and defaulted, which could confuse an agent.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Get the details of a single app configuration.' This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like list_app_configurations, create_app_configuration, update_app_configuration, and delete_app_configuration. It also clarifies scope ('single') and the 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?

Explicitly tells when to use: 'Use this when you already know which app configuration you want and need its full field set.' It also provides an alternative/gateway: 'resolve it with the matching list tool first,' and mentions the company_id default from procore_set_config. This gives clear context 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.