Show Punch Item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' It adds behavioral context by stating the return format ('Returns a single JSON object') and detailing failure modes ('401 when the token has expired, 403 without tool permission, and 404 when an id does not resolve'), exceeding what annotations provide.

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 ~120 words across 5 sentences, each adding distinct information: purpose, usage, return, errors, and API reference. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundancy with the schema, though slightly longer than strictly needed.

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 read-only show operation, the description covers purpose, usage, return shape, error handling, and API endpoint. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by stating 'full field set' and 'single JSON object,' though it could specify actual fields or link to documentation.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by explicitly listing required parameters (id, project_id) and explaining that 'id must identify an existing parent record,' giving semantic meaning beyond the schema's simple 'iD of the Punch Item'.

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 'Return detailed information about a specific Punch Item in a Project,' a specific verb+resource statement. It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing 'specific' and 'full field set,' and references resolving IDs via a list tool.

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?

States 'Use this when you already know which punch item you want and need its full field set,' providing an explicit usage condition. It also instructs to 'resolve it with the matching list tool first,' indirectly pointing to list_punch_items, but doesn't name it directly.

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