Show Project Inspection Template Item Reference

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by specifying the return type (JSON object) and that it fetches details. No contradiction; the behavioral profile is well-covered by both annotations and description.

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?

Description is concise with four sentences: title, usage, return type, required params, and endpoint. The first sentence is redundant with the title but not overly verbose. No unnecessary information.

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, the description covers purpose, usage, required parameters, and return type. However, without an output schema, it does not detail the response structure, leaving some ambiguity about what fields are returned. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage with clear parameter meanings. The description lists required parameters but adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the tool's verb ('Show') and resource ('Project Inspection Template Item Reference'), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying the endpoint and path parameters. The description accurately conveys that it fetches full details of a specific inspection item reference.

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 a clear use case ('fetch the full details... by its identifier') but does not mention when not to use this tool or offer alternatives (e.g., the company-level counterpart). Lacks explicit exclusions or context for choosing between this and sibling tools.

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