Show Project Folder (Company-Scoped)

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description adds valuable behavioral details: depth limit ('Descendants beyond one level are not included'), defaulting of company_id/project_id from procore_set_config, error payload details (401/403/404), and 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' However, it contains an internal contradiction: it says 'Return immediate accessible children... as a single mixed collection' but later 'Returns a single JSON object describing the project folder.' This ambiguity about the return shape slightly undermines transparency.

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 comprehensive and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes endpoint info, error codes, defaults, and required parameters in a structured manner. While a bit long, each sentence adds significant value, though the 'Read-only' statement repeats annotation info and the return-shape contradiction slightly detracts from overall clarity.

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 no output schema, the description does well to specify the return type ('Returns a single JSON object'), error behavior, defaults, and prerequisite resolution. It also provides the API endpoint. However, it doesn't mention pagination or filter parameters (page, per_page, view, exclude_files, etc.) in the description, though these are well-documented in the schema. The internal contradiction about return shape is a notable gap, preventing a perfect score.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds meaningful context beyond schema: company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config values when omitted, and id must identify an existing parent record, to be resolved with a list tool first. It also lists required parameters explicitly. This goes beyond mere restatement, meriting a score above the baseline of 3.

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 the tool's function: 'Return immediate accessible children for a specific project folder as a single mixed collection of folders and files, scoped under a company.' It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('project folder children'), and differentiates from siblings by emphasizing 'company-scoped' and 'Descendants beyond one level are not included.' This distinguishes it from listing tools like list_project_root_folder_children_company_scoped and show_project_folder.

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 usage context: 'Use this when you already know which project folder you want and need its full field set.' It also advises resolving the id with 'the matching list tool first,' which implies an alternative for unknown ids. However, it doesn't explicitly name a specific sibling tool or list exclusions (e.g., when to use list tools instead), so it stops short of a fully explicit when-not-to-use statement.

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