Show Project Action Plan Template Reference

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description reinforces with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore' and adds valuable error semantics (401/403/404) that are not present in structured annotations. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate failure modes.

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 but not bloated. It front-loads purpose and usage, then covers defaults, return type, read-only nature, error handling, required parameters, and API endpoint. Each sentence adds value, though the API category and endpoint could be seen as slightly extraneous for an AI agent, keeping it from a perfect score.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value ('single JSON object'), error behavior with HTTP statuses, and prerequisites (resolving id via the list tool). It provides all necessary context for an agent to invoke this read-only tool correctly and understand possible outcomes.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra context: project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config, and id must identify an existing parent record (resolvable via the list tool). This enhances understanding beyond the minimal URL path parameter descriptions in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('View') and resource ('Project Action Plan Template Reference') with clear scope ('from a given Project'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by stating 'when you already know which project action plan template reference you want' and notes it returns a single JSON object, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 states when to use: 'when you already know which project action plan template reference you want and need its full field set.' It also directs the agent to 'resolve it with the matching list tool first,' providing a clear alternative and context for how to obtain the required id. The project_id default behavior is also explained.

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