Show Near Miss

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces this with 'Read-only — it changes nothing' and adds valuable error-payload details (401, 403, 404) and the return shape ('single JSON object'). This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 a single dense paragraph that front-loads purpose and usage, then flows into parameters and errors. It contains minor redundancy (read-only reiterates annotations, required params repeat schema) but every other sentence adds unique value without being 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?

For a simple read-by-id tool, this description is remarkably complete: it covers purpose, when to use, parameter resolution, default behavior, error conditions, and endpoint context. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by stating the return type, and the rich annotations cover the safety profile.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds the default for project_id (from procore_set_config) and clarifies that id must resolve to an existing record, which is not in the schema descriptions. It repeats required parameters, but the extra contextual semantics justify a 4.

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 specific Near Miss' — a clear verb and resource. It further clarifies the tool is for retrieving a single record by id when you already know which near miss you want, distinguishing it from list_near_misses and create_near_miss siblings.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool ('when you already know which near miss you want and need its full field set') and instructs to resolve the id with the matching list tool first. Also documents the project_id default behavior, giving actionable context for parameter selection.

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