Show Asset

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

The description goes beyond annotations by detailing failure modes (HTTP 401, 403, 404), the return format ('single JSON object'), and reiterating read-only behavior. It also notes the defaulting of company_id and project_id, which is not evident from annotations or schema. 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 well-organized and front-loaded, with each sentence contributing meaningful information. The mention of 'Required parameters' is slightly redundant with the schema, but the overall length is appropriate and avoids fluff.

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 show/retrieve tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: purpose, usage, parameter behavior, return type, error handling, and API endpoint. It is complete for confident invocation.

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?

Although the schema covers all parameters (100% coverage), the description adds critical context: company_id and project_id default to config values, asset_id must reference an existing parent record and should be resolved via a list tool first. This guidance exceeds the schema's basic field 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 'Returns Asset Details by given Company, Project & Asset' — a specific verb and resource with clear scoping. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by stating 'Use this when you already know which asset you want and need its full field set', which sets it apart from list tools and code-based lookups.

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 states when to use the tool ('when you already know which asset you want and need its full field set') and provides a step for resolving asset_id via the matching list tool. It also explains default behavior for company_id and project_id from procore_set_config, giving clear context for invocation.

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