Show BIM Geometry File Bundle (Deprecated)

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description discloses error behavior with specific HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404) and reaffirms the read-only nature ('changes nothing in Procore'). This adds valuable context not present in the structured 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 multi-sentence but tightly packed: it covers purpose, deprecation, usage, errors, and endpoint in a compact form. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant fluff. It is slightly longer than average but justified by the deprecation notice and error 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?

Given no output schema, the description sufficiently covers all key aspects: what it returns (single JSON object), required parameters, error cases, read-only behavior, deprecation schedule, and the REST endpoint. It leaves no major operational gap for an agent.

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 already provides descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), including the 'view' enum semantics. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond re-stating required parameters and the prerequisite that 'id must identify an existing parent record'; it does not enrich the parameter details significantly.

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 clear action and resource: 'Return BIM Geometry File Bundle details.' It further specifies the intended use case ('when you already know which BIM geometry file bundle you want and need its full field set'), distinguishing it from list/search tools among the siblings.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use this when you already know which BIM geometry file bundle you want' and instructs resolving the id via the matching list tool first. It also gives an alternative for deprecated functionality: 'prefer a newer version... use procore_search_endpoints to find it.'

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