Show Company File

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description reinforces with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore' and adds important context about error behavior (HTTP statuses for 401/403/404) and the return shape ('single JSON object'). This goes beyond the annotation-provided safety profile.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose. It packs multiple pieces of useful information (usage, defaults, return type, error handling, API reference) into five sentences, with each sentence earning its place. The only minor issue is slight density.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description appropriately explains the return as 'a single JSON object' and lists common error statuses. It also covers required parameters and the resolution workflow. The only gap is the company_id default/required inconsistency, which slightly hurts completeness but does not undermine overall usability.

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 cover all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful guidance for resolving id and default behavior for company_id, but the statement that company_id 'defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted' contradicts the schema's required flag for company_id, which could mislead an agent. This inconsistency reduces the value added.

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 it 'Show detailed information about a File' and specifies the company-file scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_company_file or show_project_file. The phrase 'when you already know which company file you want and need its full field set' additionally clarifies the intended use case.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this when you already know which company file you want and need its full field set.' It also advises resolving the id with 'the matching list tool first,' providing a concrete workflow. However, it does not name specific alternative tools or give when-not-to-use instructions.

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