Show Commitment Change Order

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, which cover the safety and idempotency profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context (returns JSON object, endpoint details) but does not disclose rate limits, authorization requirements, or side effects beyond what annotations 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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loads the core purpose. It includes relevant details like API path and supported configurations without being verbose. Minor improvement could be removing the 'Procore API' line if it doesn't add value for the agent.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain the return value more thoroughly than 'Returns a JSON object describing the requested Commitments.' It also omits guidance on optional parameters (view, page, per_page) and their impact. The constraint on tier configurations is helpful, but overall the description leaves gaps for a 5-parameter tool.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions required parameters (project_id, id) but adds no new meaning beyond what's in the schema. The API endpoint and project details provide context but do not enhance parameter understanding.

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 function (show details of a Commitment Change Order) and includes a specific verb ('Show') and resource. It also mentions the supported tier configurations, which adds context. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like show_commitment_change_order_line_item, but the title and description make it clear it's for the main change order.

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 provides a usage constraint ('only supports projects using 1 and 2 tier change order configurations') and lists required parameters. However, it does not offer guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other show tools for commitments) or when not to use it.

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