Show Classification

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

The description adds useful error-handling context by describing how failures come back (401/403/404). However, it contains an internal contradiction: it states 'project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted' yet later lists 'Required parameters: project_id, id,' and the schema also marks project_id as required. This inconsistency undermines the clarity of the tool's actual behavior and could mislead the agent.

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 covers purpose, usage, return value, safety, errors, and endpoint. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity. The conflicting statements about project_id add confusion, but that is more a content-consistency issue than a conciseness issue, so it still earns a 4.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately states the return type (a single JSON object). It also covers failure modes and points to the Procore API location. The main gaps are the lack of explicit sibling differentiation (show_classification_company) and the project_id contradiction, which prevent a 5.

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% (both params have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about project_id defaulting to procore_set_config and id needing to resolve to an existing parent record, which is helpful. However, the project_id default statement contradicts both the schema's required list and the description's own 'Required parameters' line, diminishing the reliability of that added meaning.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Return classification detailed information.' It also specifies when to use it: 'when you already know which classification you want and need its full field set.' However, the sibling list includes show_classification_company, and the description does not explicitly distinguish between project-level and company-level classification retrieval, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use this when you already know which classification you want' and instructs to 'resolve it with the matching list tool first,' which provides a clear workflow. It does not explicitly mention alternatives (like show_classification_company) or when not to use this tool, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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