Show Equipment Logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' It adds valuable context beyond annotations: common failure statuses (401/403/404), project_id defaulting from procore_set_config, and the return type as a single JSON object.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and each sentence adds practical information (use case, defaults, error codes, endpoint). There is minor redundancy between 'Returns single Equipment Log' and 'Returns a single JSON object describing the equipment log,' but overall it is dense and well-structured.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description specifies the return type (single JSON object), covers common error statuses, provides the API path, and explains project_id defaulting. For a simple 2-parameter read-only operation with strong annotations, this is complete and self-sufficient.

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?

Input schema fully describes both parameters, and the description adds meaningful context: project_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted, and id should be resolved via the list tool first. The phrase 'existing parent record' for id is slightly ambiguous, and the default statement sits awkwardly with schema marking project_id as required, so not full marks.

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?

Description clearly states it returns a single Equipment Log and identifies the use case: when you already know which log you want and need its full field set. However, sibling tools like show_an_equipment_log and show_an_project_equipment_log exist, and the description does not explicitly differentiate from them, leaving some ambiguity.

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 when-to-use guidance ('Use this when you already know which equipment log you want and need its full field set') and instructs resolving the id with the matching list tool first. It does not explicitly name alternative show tools or state when not to use this tool, but the context is actionable.

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