Show Company Action Plan Template

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context beyond this: it explicitly says "Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore," and discloses failure response patterns (401/403/404). It also mentions the company_id default behavior from procore_set_config. However, that default claim contradicts the schema's required marker, though not the annotations.

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 compact and well-structured. It front-loads the purpose, then usage, then return type and safety, then errors, then parameters and endpoint. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple read operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential points: purpose, usage context, id resolution, return type, read-only nature, error conditions, and API endpoint. It doesn't enumerate the returned fields, but says 'full field set' and 'single JSON object,' which is adequate for an agent selecting this 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?

Schema descriptions already cover both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: company_id can default to the procore_set_config value when omitted (though this conflicts with the 'required' designation), and id must identify an existing parent record, resolved via the list tool. This adds practical value beyond the schema, but the internal contradiction slightly reduces clarity.

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 what the tool does: "Details of a single Company Action Plan Template." It also differentiates from siblings by specifying "Use this when you already know which company action plan template you want and need its full field set," and by referencing the matching list tool for id resolution. The verb 'show' and resource are unambiguous.

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 guidance: "Use this when you already know which company action plan template you want and need its full field set." It also advises resolving the id with the matching list tool first, which indirectly tells when to use the list alternative. This is clear and practical.

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