Show Project File Version

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

The annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior, but the description adds valuable context: returns a single JSON object, explicitly states 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore,' and details common error scenarios (401, 403, 404). There is no contradiction with 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 well-organized and front-loaded: purpose, use case, prerequisite, return type, read-only note, error behavior, and API reference. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy.

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 get-by-id tool, the description covers return format, error handling, and the need to resolve the id first. Despite no output schema, it sufficiently prepares an agent to call the tool correctly. Combined with rich annotations and a complete schema, the description is highly complete.

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. The description adds meaning by noting that id must identify an existing parent record and should be resolved with the list tool first, going beyond the schema's basic type and location info. This extra context justifies a score of 4.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Show detailed information about a File Version.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings such as show_project_file and create_project_file_version by focusing on file versions specifically.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use this when you already know which project file version you want and need its full field set.' It also instructs to resolve id with the matching list tool first, clarifying the prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so a score of 4 is appropriate.

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