Show Coordination Issue

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds meaningful context: 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore' reinforces safety, and it discloses error behaviors with specific HTTP status meanings (401, 403, 404). It also states the prerequisite that the id must reference an existing record, which affects how the agent plans calls. This exceeds the annotation-provided information.

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 dense but concise. It leads with the purpose, then usage condition, prerequisite, return format, behavior, error handling, required parameters, and API reference in a logical order. Every sentence contributes value; there is no filler or redundancy with the schema.

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 show/detail tool, the description covers the essential context: single object return, full field set, required parameters, read-only nature, error responses, and the specific API endpoint and module. Even without an output schema, it gives enough information for an agent to know what to expect. The only minor lack is elaboration on the view/viewpoint_format options, but those are already described in the schema.

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 all four parameters with descriptions and enum definitions, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the required parameters (id, project_id) and mentions the endpoint path, but does not add new semantic details about parameter values or their interplay beyond what the schema already provides. Schema coverage is 100%, so no compensation needed.

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 'Return a single Coordination Issue item,' which specifies the verb (return), resource (Coordination Issue), and scope (single item). It also distinguishes itself from the list tool by noting 'Use this when you already know which coordination issue you want and need its full field set,' making it clear this is a detail fetch rather than a listing operation.

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 this tool: 'Use this when you already know which coordination issue you want and need its full field set.' It also provides a key prerequisite and alternative: 'id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first.' This gives clear guidance on sequencing with the list tool and when this tool is appropriate.

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