Show Plan Revision Logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Read-only — it changes nothing' is redundant. However, it adds valuable context by describing failure modes (401/403/404 with error payloads) and the return shape (single JSON object), going beyond the annotations.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage, defaults, return type, and errors. Every sentence adds value, though the single-block structure and multiple clauses make it slightly less scannable than it could be.

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 show-by-id tool with two params and no output schema, the description fully covers the return type (single JSON object), required params, default behavior, error semantics, and API endpoint. It is self-sufficient for an agent to select and 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?

Schema covers 100% of parameters, but the description adds practical semantics: project_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted, and id must resolve an existing parent record (resolve with list tool first). This goes beyond the schema's simple '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 starts with 'Returns single Plan Revision Log', which is a specific verb+resource statement. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling list tool by saying 'Use this when you already know which plan revision log you want and need its full field set', making the tool's purpose clear and differentiated.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: use when you already know the specific log and need full fields, resolve the id with the matching list tool first, and project_id defaults to the procore_set_config value. This covers both when to use and how to prepare inputs, which is strong usage guidance.

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