Show Dumpster Logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint false, but the description adds valuable context: explicitly states 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore,' explains project_id defaults from procore_set_config, and discloses error payload details with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404). This goes beyond the annotations by covering default behavior 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 efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage, parameter behavior, read-only status, error handling, and API endpoint. Every sentence earns its place; it's slightly dense but not wasteful.

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 GET-by-id tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, usage, default parameter behavior, return type, read-only guarantee, error handling, required parameters, and the Procore API endpoint. This is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining that project_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted, and that id must identify an existing parent record to be resolved with the list tool.

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 Dumpster Log' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling list tools by noting it is used when you already know which dumpster log you want and need the full field set. It also references resolving the id with the matching list tool, further differentiating its role.

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 guidance on when to use this tool ('Use this when you already know which dumpster log you want') and instructs to resolve the id with the list tool first. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough to select this over alternatives.

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