Show Punch Item Type

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds context about the API endpoint and that it returns a JSON object. No contradictions. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the endpoint and return type.

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 four sentences, front-loading the purpose. It is concise but contains slight redundancy (e.g., 'Punch List records' appears twice). Efficient overall.

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 a simple retrieval tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description adequately covers return format and required parameters. It lacks clarification about page/per_page parameters that may be irrelevant for a single-item endpoint, but this is a minor gap.

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. The description redundantly states required parameters (id, project_id) but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. With high schema coverage, 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns detail on a Punch Item Type, using verbs like 'Return detail' and 'fetch'. It identifies the resource and output format. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like show_punch_item or show_punch_assignment, which are similarly named.

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 advises to use this tool to fetch full details by identifier and lists required parameters, but lacks when-not-to-use or alternative tool guidance. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are provided.

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