Show Harm Source

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description adds transparency by specifying the HTTP method (GET), endpoint URL, and the Procore API section, giving the agent concrete context about the request behavior. It does not contradict annotations.

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 extremely concise, with each sentence serving a distinct purpose: purpose, usage hint, return type, required parameters, and API reference. No redundant or vague text. It is front-loaded with the key action.

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 retrieval tool with good annotations, the description covers the essential information. However, it fails to define what a Harm Source is, does not explain the response structure (no output schema exists), and contains a typo ('Incidents' instead of 'Harm Source'). This lack of domain context and response details slightly hinders completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all parameters. The description only highlights required parameters (company_id, id) already marked in the schema, adding no new semantic meaning. The pagination parameters (page, per_page) are not addressed in the description, but their purpose is clear from the 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 states it returns a specific Harm Source by identifier, clearly indicating a single resource retrieval. However, it incorrectly refers to 'Incidents' instead of 'Harm Source', which could cause slight confusion. The verb 'Returns' is specific, and it distinguishes from list operations by focusing on a single item.

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 implies use for fetching full details of a specific harm source, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., when a list is needed) or provide alternatives. The sibling tools like list_harm_sources are not referenced, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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