Show Change History

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description reinforces this with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore' and adds valuable context on failure modes (HTTP status 401/403/404) and the project_id default behavior. No contradiction with 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 reasonably concise and front-loaded, but it is a dense block of information that includes endpoint details and common errors. It could be structured more clearly, though every sentence adds some value.

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 2-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states purpose, usage, return type, default behavior, and error scenarios. The endpoint and Procore category also help locate it within the API.

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. The description adds some meaning by noting project_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted, but this conflicts with the schema's required flag for project_id, making the extra information potentially misleading. Overall it does not clearly improve on the schema-provided semantics.

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 clearly identifies the tool as showing change history for a specific Time and Material Entry, using a specific verb ('Show') and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by scoping to Time and Material Entry change history and clarifies it returns a single record when the user already knows which one they want.

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?

Provides when-to-use guidance ('when you already know which change history you want and need its full field set') and instructs to resolve the id with the matching list tool first. It does not explicitly name alternative change history tools for other resources, so it falls short of a 5.

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