Show Daily Construction Report Logs

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

Annotations already mark read-only, and the description reinforces with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' It adds valuable error semantics: '401 when the token has expired, 403 without tool permission, and 404 when an id does not resolve.' The project_id default behavior is also disclosed, though it conflicts with the schema.

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 and then adds usage, return type, safety, error handling, and API path in a logical order. It repeats the return-type statement twice and restates required parameters already visible in the schema, but the content remains functional and not overly verbose.

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 2-parameter read-only tool with annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, error handling, and id resolution well. The lack of an output schema is partly compensated by 'single JSON object describing the daily construction report log,' but the project_id default contradiction introduces ambiguity that reduces completeness. It does not list the full field set, though that may be acceptable without an output 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?

Schema covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds useful guidance that id must identify an existing parent record and should be resolved via the list tool first. However, it states project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted, contradicting the schema's required flag and potentially misleading an agent into omitting a required parameter.

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 'Returns single Daily Construction Report Log,' clearly specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes this show tool from list/create/update/delete siblings by noting it is for when you already know which log you want and need its full field set.

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?

'Use this when you already know which daily construction report log you want and need its full field set' gives explicit selection criteria. It also directs resolving id with the matching list tool first, indicating the alternative for finding the record. It lacks an explicit 'do not use for listing' exclusion, but the scope is clear.

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