Show Image

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' Beyond annotations, it adds valuable behavioral details about error payloads (401, 403, 404) and the requirement to resolve the id via a list tool, which are not present in structured fields.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: usage context, id resolution, return format, read-only guarantee, error behavior, required parameters, and API reference. No fluff or repetition.

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-only tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, prerequisites, return format, safety, and error handling. It also includes the Procore API section and endpoint, making it self-contained for an agent selecting and invoking the tool.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds a useful note that 'id must identify an existing parent record' and mentions required parameters, but it mostly repeats schema information. This aligns with the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 'Show detailed information for a specified Image' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from list_images by noting 'Use this when you already know which image you want and need its full field set.' The scope is further clarified with 'in a Project's Photo Album (Image Category)'.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('when you already know which image you want and need its full field set') and provides a prerequisite ('id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first'). It also clarifies it's read-only and describes common error conditions, giving clear context for selection.

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