Show BIM Model

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' More importantly, it discloses failure behavior (error payload with HTTP status, specifically 401/403/404), which goes beyond annotations and helps set expectations for error handling.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage guidance, safety, error semantics, and API endpoint context. Every sentence provides useful information with no redundancy or 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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the return type ('single JSON object'), failure modes, and prerequisites. It does not expand on the view parameter's output differences, but the schema already describes those. For a simple GET tool with good annotations and schema, this is adequately complete.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it restates required parameters and adds context that 'id must identify an existing parent record,' but it does not explain the view parameter's effect on response shape (the schema already covers this). The 'full field set' hint is useful but not a full semantic explanation.

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?

Description uses the specific verb+resource combination 'Return a single BIM Model item' and distinguishes its use case ('when you already know which BIM model you want and need its full field set') from the list tool. It clearly identifies the target resource and differentiates from sibling tools like create/update/delete and list operations.

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 BIM model you want') and gives a clear prerequisite ('resolve it with the matching list tool first'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use exclusions beyond implying the list tool is for discovery.

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