Show Item Response Set Response

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), the description adds valuable context: company_id defaults from procore_set_config, prerequisite that response_set_id and id must resolve, output shape ('single JSON object'), and error behavior with specific HTTP status meanings (401, 403, 404). This is rich behavioral transparency.

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: purpose first, then usage context, then behavioral details, then error handling, then API reference. Every sentence adds value without fluff or repetition, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 GET-by-ID tool, the description covers all necessary context: what it returns, when to use it, prerequisites, error modes, and API endpoint. Annotations cover safety, and the schema fully documents parameters, so nothing essential is missing.

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 describes all three parameters. The description adds extra meaning by noting company_id can default from procore_set_config and that response_set_id and id must identify existing parent records. This goes beyond the schema's basic path parameter 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 opens with 'Returns a specified Response from the Item Response Set,' a specific verb+resource statement that clearly identifies the tool's function. It distinguishes from siblings like show_item_response_set (which shows the set, not a response) and list_responses_in_the_specified_item_response_set (which lists responses).

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 states when to use the tool: 'when you already know which item response set response you want and need its full field set.' It also advises resolving parent records with the matching list tool first. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative list tool or state when-not-to-use, so it falls 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.