Show Classification

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, it adds useful context: error payloads with expected HTTP statuses (401/403/404), company_id default behavior, and a read-only reassurance. The company_id default statement slightly conflicts with the schema's 'required' flag, but this is not an annotation contradiction.

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 dense but well-structured, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes only relevant details (endpoint, errors, defaults). Every sentence earns its place, though it is slightly long for a simple get-by-id tool.

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?

It covers return shape, error behavior, parameter semantics, and prerequisites. There is no output schema, but the description's 'single JSON object' suffices. It does not enumerate fields, but that is acceptable for a show tool with a list counterpart.

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%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: company_id defaults to procore_set_config value, and id must reference an existing parent record resolved via the list tool. This helps the agent understand parameter usage beyond identifiers.

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 ('Return Classification detailed information') and clearly states the use case ('when you already know which classification you want and need its full field set'). This distinguishes it from list tools and aligns with its sibling 'show_classification_project' by scope.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool and gives a prerequisite ('resolve id with the matching list tool first'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not to use, but the context is clear enough.

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