Show Project Checklist Template

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds significant operational context: permission level required ('read-only and above permissions to Inspections'), explicit read-only statement, failure modes (401/403/404), return format, and project_id defaulting behavior. This goes well beyond what annotations already declare.

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?

Every sentence earns its place. The description is dense but well-structured: purpose, permissions, usage trigger, parameter defaults, return type, failure modes, and endpoint. No fluff or repetition; it front-loads the core purpose and stays efficiently organized.

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 endpoint with no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what it returns, how to resolve parameters, error behavior, permissions, and API location. It also gives the larger workflow hint ('resolve it with the matching list tool first'), making it self-sufficient.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics: project_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted, and id must identify an existing parent record resolved via the matching list tool. These usage details are not present in the schema 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 opens with 'Shows an Inspection Checklist Template' — a specific verb and resource. It further clarifies scope with 'project checklist template' and 'need its full field set,' distinguishing it from list/search tools. The endpoint string reinforces the exact resource being retrieved.

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 says 'Use this when you already know which project checklist template you want' and instructs to resolve the id with the matching list tool first. This gives clear when-to-use guidance, though it stops short of naming the specific sibling list tool (e.g., list_project_checklist_templates).

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