Show Recycled Action Plan Section

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore' and details error payloads with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404), which goes beyond the annotation hints and helps the agent anticipate failures.

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 dense but well-organized, front-loading the primary purpose then moving to usage, safety, and error handling. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise by trimming the API path and category details which are less actionable for an agent.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it states the return type (single JSON object), prerequisites (resolve id first), default behavior for project_id, read-only nature, and common failure modes with status codes. This fully equips an agent to invoke the tool correctly without needing additional context.

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 covers both parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that id must reference an existing parent record and to resolve it via the list tool, and mentions project_id defaults to procore_set_config value when omitted. However, this default statement conflicts with the schema marking project_id as required, which is a minor inconsistency, but overall the added context improves parameter understanding.

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 retrieves a single recycled action plan section in a specified Procore project, using the specific verb 'Retrieves' and identifying the exact resource. It also distinguishes this show operation from list operations by noting it's for when you already know which section you want and need the 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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use this when you already know which recycled action plan section you want and need its full field set.' It also advises resolving the id with the matching list tool first, implying when to use a list vs. show tool. This clearly differentiates from alternatives.

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