Show Project Upload

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' It goes beyond annotations by detailing error payloads with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404) and clarifying the return shape as a single JSON object. This is valuable behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then flows logically through usage, parameter behavior, output, error handling, and API reference. Every sentence contributes distinct information with no redundancy or filler, making it efficiently structured.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter defaults, output shape, error behavior, and API version. The only slight shortcoming is the contradiction between 'Required parameters: project_id, uuid' and the earlier statement that project_id can be omitted when a config default exists, which could confuse an agent.

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 meaningful behavior: project_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted (though schema marks it required, a minor inconsistency) and uuid must identify an existing parent record, which should be resolved via a list tool. This goes beyond the schema's terse 'URL path parameter' 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 'Show detailed information on an upload,' a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly scopes to project uploads and distinguishes from list tools by stating when to use it ('when you already know which project upload you want and need its full field set'). The endpoint path further disambiguates from company uploads.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when you already know which project upload you want and need its full field set' and instructs the agent to resolve the uuid with 'the matching list tool first.' It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., list_project_uploads or show_company_upload), so it stops short of a 5.

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