Show BIM Viewpoint

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.' It adds valuable context about failure modes (401/403/404 with error payloads) and the requirement that id must resolve to an existing parent record, which goes beyond 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds relevant information: when to use, id resolution, return type, read-only nature, error behaviors, required parameters, API category, and endpoint. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple GET operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, usage conditions, id resolution prerequisite, return type, side-effect-free guarantee, failure modes, required parameters, and endpoint. The tool is relatively low complexity, and this description is 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 both id and project_id documented as identifiers. The description adds extra meaning by explaining that id must identify an existing parent record and must be resolved with a list tool first, which is not present in the raw schema.

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 'Return a single BIM Viewpoint,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly distinguishes the tool from listing/creating tools by specifying it returns one viewpoint and its full field set, and it includes the exact endpoint and API category.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('when you already know which BIM viewpoint you want and need its full field set') and instructs to resolve the id with the matching list tool first. It does not name a specific alternative tool but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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