Show Recycled Action Plan Reference

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds valuable behavioral context: it explicitly states 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore,' describes the return type ('Returns a single JSON object'), and details failure modes with common HTTP status codes and their meanings. It also discloses the default behavior for project_id, adding transparency beyond 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and provides focused guidance on usage, return value, and errors. It is somewhat verbose with redundant statements like 'Required parameters: project_id, id' which repeats the schema, and the API/endpoint line is useful but could be considered extra. Overall it is well-structured and every sentence contributes.

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 2-parameter GET tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it returns, error semantics, and the need to resolve id beforehand. The contradiction about project_id's requirement leaves a gap in fully understanding the invocation contract, preventing a perfect score.

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?

The schema descriptions are minimal, so the description adds context about project_id defaulting to procore_set_config and id needing to resolve an existing parent record. However, the description contradicts the schema by saying project_id can be omitted while the schema requires it, creating confusion about how to actually supply the parameter. The useful id resolution guidance is undermined by this inconsistency.

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 'Retrieves a single recycled action plan reference in the specified Procore project,' which is a specific verb+resource+scope statement. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by saying 'Use this when you already know which recycled action plan reference you want and need its full field set.'

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 states when to use the tool ('when you already know which recycled action plan reference you want') and directs the agent to resolve the id with the matching list tool first, providing explicit alternatives. However, it contains an internal contradiction: it says project_id 'defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted' but later lists project_id as a required parameter and the schema marks it required, making the usage guidance partially unreliable.

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