Show Calendar Item

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds concrete behavioral details: project_id defaults to the procore_set_config value, id must be an existing parent record, return format is a single JSON object, and failure patterns include HTTP statuses 401/403/404. It also explicitly states 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore' reinforcing the annotation. No contradictions.

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 paragraph that front-loads the purpose and then adds usage, behavior, and API details. The sentence about project_id defaulting is valuable, and the endpoint info is concise. Minor redundancy with the readOnlyHint annotation (repeating 'Read-only') but overall every sentence adds actionable information.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by stating the return type ('single JSON object'), error handling, parameter defaults, and the exact API endpoint. It also gives guidance on how to obtain the required id via the list tool. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without requiring additional lookups.

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 schema already documents both parameters with descriptions, so coverage is 100%. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining the default behavior of project_id (falls back to config) and instructing that id must be resolved via the list tool first, which goes beyond the schema. However, it doesn't elaborate on the return JSON structure beyond 'single JSON object.'

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: 'Get the details of a single Calendar Item.' It further clarifies scope with 'full field set' and distinguishes from list operations by stating 'when you already know which calendar item you want,' which differentiates it from sibling tools like list_calendar_items.

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: 'Use this when you already know which calendar item you want and need its full field set.' It also provides the prerequisite action: 'resolve it with the matching list tool first.' This gives clear usage context and implies not to use this for browsing or listing.

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