Show Incident

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description redundantly states 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore' (no added credit) but goes beyond annotations by detailing failure modes ('401 when token expired, 403 without permission, 404 unresolved id'), response variability across record types, and the prerequisite that id must reference an existing parent. This is useful behavioral context.

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 dense and covers many aspects, but it includes redundancies ('Returns a single JSON object' repeats the first sentence; 'Read-only' repeats annotations; 'Required parameters' repeats schema). Still, each section is front-loaded and earns its place, so it's not overly verbose.

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, so the description compensates by listing the nested record types (injuries, near_misses, etc.), custom fields, and single-object return. It also covers error semantics and defaulting, giving a fairly complete picture for an agent.

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 descriptions cover both parameters with types and path markers (100% coverage), so baseline 3. The description adds that project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config, and clarifies that id must be an existing incident resolved from a list call, adding meaning beyond 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?

Description opens with a specific verb 'Returns' and resource 'the specified incident', with scope 'full details including nested arrays...'. It distinguishes from sibling list tools by saying 'when you already know which incident you want' and noting the full field set, which separates it from list_incidents or show_recycled_incident.

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 an explicit condition: 'Use this when you already know which incident you want and need its full field set.' It also advises resolving the id via the matching list tool first, giving a clear workflow. However, it does not explicitly state 'when not to use' or name an alternative tool by name, so it's just short of a 5.

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