Show Productivity Logs

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent, but the description adds valuable context: project_id defaults to procore_set_config, error payloads with HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404), and a confirmation that it changes nothing. This goes beyond the annotation hints.

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 minimal but every sentence carries useful information: use case, defaults, error handling, required params, and endpoint. It is logically structured, though 'Required parameters: project_id, id' and 'Read-only' are somewhat redundant with the schema and annotations.

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 single-resource show tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers return type ('single JSON object'), how to obtain the id, error responses, and the endpoint. It could elaborate on the field set, but 'full field set' is mentioned, making it sufficiently complete for selection and invocation.

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 meaning: project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config, and id must reference an existing parent record. This clarifies behavior beyond the schema's basic field descriptions, though the note about project_id being optional slightly conflicts with the schema's required flag.

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 clearly states 'Returns single Productivity Log' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_productivity_logs by noting 'when you already know which productivity log you want' and 'need its full field set'.

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 provides clear context: use when you know the specific productivity log and need its full field set. It also gives a prerequisite: 'resolve it with the matching list tool first.' However, it does not explicitly name the alternative list tool or state when not to use this tool.

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