Show Checklist Comment

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

Beyond the existing annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds valuable behavioral details: it explicitly states 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore,' describes the return type as 'a single JSON object,' and details common failure HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404). This exceeds the annotation baseline.

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 purpose, then usage, behavior, errors, parameters, and endpoint reference. Each section adds useful information, though the 'Read-only' sentence and required-parameters list are redundant with annotations and schema, slightly reducing conciseness.

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 read-only tool with three parameters, the description is remarkably complete: it states the purpose, prerequisites, return type, error behavior, required parameters, and exact API endpoint. Since there is no output schema, the description's note on the return value fills that gap adequately.

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?

Although the schema already documents all three parameters (100% coverage), the description adds semantic context by emphasizing that 'list_id, id must identify existing parent records' and advising to resolve them first. It also lists required parameters, reinforcing the schema without contradicting it.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieves Checklist Comment in a specified Checklist.' It also clarifies the exact use case ('when you already know which checklist comment you want and need its full field set'), distinguishing it from listing or creating comments.

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?

It tells the agent when to use this tool: when the specific comment is already known. It also instructs to resolve parent records with a matching list tool first, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for listing comments, so it lacks a direct exclusion or named alternative.

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