Show Asset

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' It adds valuable context beyond annotations: company_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted, asset_id must be an existing parent record, and failure modes (401/403/404) are explained. 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 a single well-organized paragraph that front-loads the primary purpose and then covers usage, defaults, errors, and endpoint. Slightly redundant with the schema (e.g., restating 'Required parameters: company_id, asset_id' and the endpoint), but each sentence contributes meaningful context. Not as tight as a two-sentence description but still reasonably concise.

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?

For a read-only show tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: return shape ('single JSON object'), error handling with specific HTTP status codes, default configuration behavior, and a prerequisite for asset_id. Combined with the annotations and schema, this gives an agent enough information 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining the default behavior of company_id (from config) and providing a resolution strategy for asset_id ('resolve it with the matching list tool first'), which goes beyond the schema's basic 'unique identifier' descriptions.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Returns Asset Details by given Company & Asset.' It also states when to use it ('when you already know which asset you want and need its full field set'), which clearly distinguishes it from list tools like list_assets_company by implying a targeted lookup rather than a broad listing.

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 gives a clear usage condition ('Use this when you already know which asset you want') and provides a procedural hint to resolve asset_id with the matching list tool first. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling show tools (e.g., show_asset_project, show_asset_by_code_company), so it lacks exclusions for those alternatives.

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