Show Environmental

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description reinforces this by stating 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' It also adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: failure payloads carry HTTP status, common 401/403/404 causes, and the return type is a single JSON object. No annotation contradiction; the only minor ambiguity is the 'project_id defaults...' statement conflicting with the schema's required flag.

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 contains valuable details such as error behavior, endpoint path, and required parameters. It is somewhat longer than strictly necessary, and the 'Required parameters: project_id, id' sentence partly duplicates the schema's required array, but every other sentence contributes useful selection or invocation information.

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 single-record read tool with no output schema, the description provides a clear return shape ('a single JSON object'), read-only confirmation, parameter resolution workflow, and common error scenarios. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool confidently, though the project_id default contradiction with the schema and the unexplained incident_id parameter keep it from being fully polished.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already fully documents the parameters. The description adds helpful guidance for id ('must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first'), but the claim that project_id 'defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted' conflicts with the schema marking project_id as required. This mixed signal prevents a higher score.

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 object: 'Returns the details of a single environmental record identified by its ID.' This clearly distinguishes the show operation from siblings like list_environmentals, create_environmental, update_environmental, and destroy_environmental. It also clarifies the resource type and the single-record scope.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use this when you already know which environmental you want and need its full field set.' It also recommends resolving the id with the matching list tool first, which provides a concrete workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name direct alternatives beyond the list tool.

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