Show Incident Alert

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.' It adds valuable behavioral context by describing the return format ('a single JSON object') and common error semantics (401 expired token, 403 missing permission, 404 unresolved id), plus the project_id default behavior. No contradiction with 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 concise at about five sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then usage guidance, return format, read-only nature, and error handling. Each sentence adds unique information without filler or redundancy. The structure is logical and easy to parse.

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 show operation with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what is returned, read-only safety, common error codes, id resolution, default project_id behavior, and the exact API endpoint path. This is sufficient for an agent to select, invoke, and interpret the tool's results correctly.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: project_id 'defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted,' and id 'must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first.' This enriches parameter meaning and helps the agent provide valid inputs.

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 clear verb+object: 'Returns the details of a single incident alert,' and specifies exactly what data is included (injury, severity level, recipient). It differentiates from sibling list tools by stating 'Use this when you already know which incident alert you want and need its full field set,' which unambiguously establishes this as a single-record show operation.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use this when you already know which incident alert you want and need its full field set.' It also advises resolving the id with the matching list tool first, providing guidance on prerequisites. However, it does not name a specific alternative tool (e.g., list_incident_alerts) or explicitly state when not to use it, so it falls just short of the most explicit guidance.

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