Show Checklist Template (Deprecated)

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

The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing the read-only nature ('Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore'), potential removal without notice due to deprecation, and specific failure modes (401, 403, 404 with error payloads). This is valuable context that annotations alone do not fully convey.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by deprecation notice, usage instructions, parameter guidance, output description, and error semantics. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose and the length is justified given the deprecated status and multiple caveats.

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?

The description covers purpose, deprecation status, usage conditions, parameter resolution, output format ('Returns a single JSON object'), and error response characteristics. For a read-only tool with no output schema, this is comprehensive and leaves no critical gap in understanding.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a useful note that 'id must identify an existing parent record' and mentions required parameters, but project_id is not elaborated beyond schema. It adds modest semantic value but does not significantly enhance understanding of parameter formats or constraints.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Shows an Inspection Checklist Template.' It clearly identifies the resource type and action, and distinguishes this deprecated tool from alternative newer resources by stating it may be removed and directing users to use procore_search_endpoints to find a newer version.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this when you already know which checklist template you want and need its full field set.' It also warns about deprecation, suggests finding a newer version, and instructs to resolve the id with the matching list tool first. This clearly delineates when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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