Show Change Event

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

The description adds value beyond the annotations by confirming it is read-only and by detailing error behavior with specific HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404). It also discloses that it returns a single JSON object and the full field set, which is useful context not present in structured fields. The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the description complements them without contradiction.

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 contains multiple pieces of information—purpose, usage scenario, id resolution, return format, read-only nature, error handling, and API references—each relevant and non-redundant. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and flows logically. While a bit lengthy, every sentence earns its place without unnecessary verbosity.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, how it fails, and the API endpoint. It also states the API category and version, which is helpful for context. The only gap is that it does not enumerate the fields in the full field set, but for a read-only show operation this is acceptable given the schema and annotations.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 because the schema documents all parameters. The description enhances this by clarifying that id must identify an existing parent record and should be resolved via the list tool first, adding semantic meaning for correct invocation. The optional include_deleted_change_event_line_items parameter is not mentioned, but the schema describes it adequately.

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 begins with 'Retrieves a single change event in Procore,' which is a specific verb+resource pairing that clearly states what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it returns the full field set and is intended for when you already know the change event, as opposed to listing or creating. The purpose is unambiguous and differentiates from related tools.

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 says 'Use this when you already know which change event you want and need its full field set,' which provides clear context for when to use this tool. It also instructs to resolve the id with the matching list tool first, giving practical guidance. However, it does not name explicit alternative sibling tools, though 'matching list tool' is a sufficient reference.

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