Show Recycled Action Plan Item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explaining error behavior (401/403/404), the default for project_id via procore_set_config, and the prerequisite that id must reference an existing parent record. These go beyond what annotations provide and align with them.

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?

Every sentence in the description earns its place: it covers purpose, usage guidance, parameter behavior, output type, read-only nature, error cases, required params, and the API endpoint. There is no fluff or redundancy; it is dense but well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately describes the return as 'a single JSON object' and communicates the full field set. It also covers error handling, param defaults, and endpoint. It could have elaborated on the exact response structure, but for a show tool, this is sufficient and leaves little ambiguity.

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 descriptions cover the parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description enriches this by explaining that project_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted, that id must resolve to an existing record (and should be obtained via a list tool), and that both parameters are required. This adds meaningful usage detail beyond the schema.

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 'Returns a Specific Recycled Action Plan Item for a given Project,' which clearly states the action, resource, and scope. It also says 'Use this when you already know which recycled action plan item you want and need its full field set,' distinguishing it from list or non-recycled show tools.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Use this when you already know which recycled action plan item you want and need its full field set.' It also directs the agent to 'resolve it with the matching list tool first,' implying the alternative for discovering IDs. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use it, 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.