Show Checklist (Inspection)

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

Annotations already provide read-only and idempotent hints, so the description's 'Read-only — it changes nothing' adds little. However, it goes beyond annotations by detailing error payloads with common HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404), which is valuable for handling failures and understanding expectations.

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. It contains several pieces of info (usage, params, errors, endpoint) but remains organized and not overly verbose. Reciting 'Required parameters: id, project_id' is somewhat redundant with the schema, warranting a minor deduction.

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?

Given no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, error handling, and the API endpoint, which is fairly complete for a read tool. However, 'Returns a single JSON object' is vague about the actual structure (e.g., whether it includes sections/items), leaving some ambiguity about the response shape. Still, the coverage is strong overall.

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 descriptions for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context that project_id can default from procore_set_config and that id must identify an existing record resolved via list tool. However, the statement that project_id can be omitted conflicts with the schema marking it as required, introducing ambiguity that prevents a higher score.

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 'Returns the specified Checklist (Inspection)', providing a specific verb and resource. It also states 'Use this when you already know which checklist you want and need its full field set', which differentiates it from list/search tools and sibling tools like show_checklist.

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 checklist you want') and instructs to 'resolve it with the matching list tool first' when id is unknown. It also clarifies the default behavior of project_id from procore_set_config, giving clear usage context.

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