Show Delivery Log

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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, etc.), the description adds valuable behavioral context: project_id defaults from procore_set_config when omitted, failures return error payloads with HTTP status (401, 403, 404), and it explicitly states 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' These details help the agent anticipate outcomes.

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 every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, usage context, parameter behavior, return type, error handling, required params, and API reference. It is dense but not bloated; no fluff.

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 tool with two params, the description covers key operational aspects: return format, parameter defaults, error semantics, and the exact API endpoint. With no output schema, it provides enough context for an agent to invoke correctly and interpret failures.

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 parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics: project_id has a default from procore_set_config and id must reference an existing record resolvable via the list tool. This goes beyond the schema's basic URL-path descriptions, though the 'defaults when omitted' phrasing slightly conflicts with the required-parameter schema.

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 'Returns single Delivery Log' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself by noting 'Use this when you already know which delivery log you want and need its full field set.' This differentiates it from list and create/update/delete siblings.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use this tool ('when you already know which delivery log you want and need its full field set'), and gives actionable guidance to resolve the id with the matching list tool first. This clearly directs the agent to the correct workflow.

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