Show Recycled Action Plan Item Assignee

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 reinforces this with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore' and adds valuable behavioral details including error payload behavior, common HTTP status codes (401/403/404), and the project_id defaulting behavior. This significantly exceeds 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 information-dense but well-organized, front-loading the purpose and then adding usage, error, default, and endpoint details. Every sentence contributes useful information; however, it is somewhat long and packs many facts into one paragraph.

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 show tool with no output schema, the description covers return shape ('single JSON object'), error conditions, required parameters, endpoint, and API area. It provides enough context for an agent to invoke and handle failures without additional lookup.

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% with both parameter descriptions present. The description adds context by explaining that project_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted and that id must reference an existing parent record. This goes beyond the raw schema, though the defaulting note slightly conflicts with the schema's required flag.

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 shows details of a single Recycled Action Plan Item Assignee, using a specific verb ('Details of') and resource. It distinguishes itself from the list tool by emphasizing 'single' and 'when you already know which...'.

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 clear usage context: use when you already know the specific assignee and need its full field set. It also directs the user to resolve the id with the matching list tool first. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it beyond the implication of single vs list.

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