Show Notes Logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it explicitly states 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore', discloses error payload behavior with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404), and explains the default behavior of project_id when omitted. This goes beyond the structured annotation fields.

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 thorough but not bloated; it front-loads the main purpose and then covers prerequisites, return type, side effects, error handling, required parameters, and API endpoint. Some redundancy exists (e.g., 'Returns single Notes Log' and 'Returns a single JSON object'), but each sentence contributes useful information, making it efficient overall.

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-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete: it states the return shape, error semantics, default parameter behavior, prerequisite for id resolution, and API endpoint. The annotations cover safety, and the parameters are fully documented, leaving no significant gaps in the agent's ability to invoke the tool 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?

Input schema already covers both parameters at 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics: project_id defaults to the configured value when omitted, and id must identify an existing parent record to be resolved via the list tool. These details are not present in the schema descriptions, enhancing usability.

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 begins with 'Returns single Notes Log', which is a specific verb+resource pair that clearly identifies the tool's function. It further distinguishes itself from listing tools by stating 'Use this when you already know which notes log you want and need its full field set', and the mention of resolving id via 'the matching list tool first' differentiates it from sibling list tools.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when you already know which notes log you want and need its full field set'. It also gives a prerequisite ('resolve it with the matching list tool first') and notes the project_id default from config. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative list tool or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions/alternatives.

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