Show Project Inspection Template Item Reference

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/destructive hints; the description adds error status meanings (401, 403, 404) and mentions the project_id default. However, the default statement conflicts with the input schema's required field, which is a notable inconsistency that detracts from otherwise helpful 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 a single dense paragraph that front-loads the main purpose and keeps every sentence informative. It avoids fluff, though the 'Required parameters' line redundantly restates the schema.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description covers return shape, error behavior, prerequisites, and API endpoint. The only gap is the schema contradiction and the lack of detail about the returned JSON fields, but overall it's quite 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 covers all three parameters with path descriptions. Description adds value by telling the agent to resolve parent record IDs via the list tool and notes the project_id default, though the default contradicts the required attribute, making the extra guidance slightly confusing.

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 retrieves a single project inspection template item reference, using a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource. It distinguishes from sibling list/create/delete tools by emphasizing 'single' and 'full field set' and by specifying the exact endpoint path.

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?

It explicitly says to use when you already know the specific reference and need its full field set, and advises resolving parent records with the matching list tool first. This gives clear when-to-use guidance relative to the sibling list tool, though it doesn't name the list tool explicitly.

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