Show Inspection Logs

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds valuable behavioral details: it explicitly states 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore' (consistent with readOnlyHint), explains the default behavior of project_id, and discloses failure modes with specific HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404). This goes beyond what annotations alone provide and helps the agent anticipate error handling.

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 ('Returns single Inspection Log'), followed by usage context, behavioral details, error handling, required parameters, and API reference. Each sentence provides essential information without unnecessary filler, and the organization makes it easy to scan.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value ('single JSON object') and error payloads. It covers prerequisites (resolve id first), defaulting behavior, required parameters, and even maps to the specific Procore API endpoint. For a simple read-only tool, this is comprehensive.

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?

Even though the schema already describes both parameters (100% coverage), the description adds crucial semantics: project_id is said to default to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted, and id must 'identify an existing parent record' with guidance to resolve it using the list tool. This enriches the parameter meaning beyond the generic 'URL path parameter' schema descriptions.

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 is very explicit: 'Returns single Inspection Log' uses a specific verb and resource, and it clearly states the tool's scope ('when you already know which inspection log you want'). It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by explaining that id must be resolved via the matching list tool first, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 says when to use this tool ('when you already know which inspection log you want and need its full field set') and directs the agent to resolve the id with the matching list tool first, thereby naming the alternative for when the id is not known. It also explains the project_id default from procore_set_config, giving clear usage context.

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