Show Manpower Logs

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 error payload details (401/403/404), the default behavior for project_id, and the requirement that id must reference an existing record. This is meaningful additional 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 longer than two sentences but every sentence adds useful information: purpose, usage context, parameter defaults, return type, side-effect profile, error behavior, required params, and API location. It is well-structured with front-loaded purpose and supporting details following in a logical order.

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?

This is a simple single-resource GET tool with no output schema. The description explains the return type ('single JSON object'), error semantics, parameter requirements, and the API endpoint. It does not describe the internal field structure of the manpower log, but for a fetch-by-id operation this is not a significant gap given the strong annotations and schema coverage.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the project_id default from procore_set_config (which is not evident from the schema since it marks the param as required) and clarifying that id must be resolved via the list tool. This goes beyond the schema's terse 'URL 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 a specific verb and resource: 'Returns single Manpower Log.' It clearly distinguishes itself from list tools by stating 'Use this when you already know which manpower log you want and need its full field set,' which separates it from sibling tools like list_manpower_logs and create_manpower_log.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('when you already know which manpower log you want') and gives a concrete prerequisite ('resolve it with the matching list tool first'). It also explains the project_id default behavior from procore_set_config, providing clear context for invocation.

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