Show Checklist Item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly confirms 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore', describes the return format (single JSON object), and details error semantics (HTTP status codes 401/403/404). It doesn't describe pagination or field-level behavior, but for a simple GET, this is adequate.

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 every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage, prerequisites, return type, read-only nature, error handling, required params, and API endpoint. No redundancy or fluff, and key information is front-loaded.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (4 params, no output schema) and strong annotations, the description covers all essential invocation details: what it does, when to use it, prerequisites, read-only guarantee, error mapping, and endpoint. It is complete enough for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool without further documentation.

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 schema fully documents all four parameters. The description repeats the required parameters without adding new semantics. It does hint at how to obtain list_id and id ('resolve them with the matching list tool first'), which is a minor relational hint, but this is not substantial beyond the schema.

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 states 'Retrieves Checklist Item in a specified Checklist' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes the tool's purpose by adding 'Use this when you already know which checklist item you want and need its full field set', which clarifies its niche among similar show/list 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?

Provides clear usage context ('when you already know which checklist item you want') and a prerequisite ('resolve them with the matching list tool first'). However, it does not name specific alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, so it falls short of the top score.

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