Show Configurable Field Set

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this by stating 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: return type (single JSON object), error payload format with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404) and their meanings, and the default for company_id. This is exactly the kind of context that helps an agent anticipate side effects and failure modes.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then logically flows through usage, defaults, return, read-only status, error handling, required parameters, and API endpoint. Every sentence adds unique value; there is no redundancy or filler despite covering a lot of ground. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description is comprehensive. It covers return shape, error payloads, default behavior, and API location (endpoint and version). No critical information is missing for an agent to successfully invoke and interpret this tool, and it even points to the prerequisite resolution step for id.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaning beyond the raw schema: company_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted, and id must identify an existing parent record resolved via the matching list tool. These semantics are not present in the schema's terse parameter descriptions and are critical for correct invocation.

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 and resource: 'Returns the details for a specified Configurable Field Set.' It clearly distinguishes this show operation from list/create/update/delete siblings by stating 'Use this when you already know which configurable field set you want and need its full field set.' This makes the tool's purpose 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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use this when you already know which configurable field set you want' and instructs to 'resolve it with the matching list tool first.' It also explains the company_id default behavior via procore_set_config, which helps agents know when to omit the parameter. This is strong guidance for selecting this tool over alternatives.

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