Show Recycled Action Plan Template Section

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it confirms read-only behavior (consistent with annotations), explains error responses with common status codes (401, 403, 404), and notes company_id defaults via procore_set_config. However, this last point conflicts with the schema's required flag, creating minor confusion about whether company_id can be omitted.

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 action and usage scenario, followed by parameter notes, return type, read-only status, error handling, and API reference. It is structured effectively, though the contradictory company_id default/required sentence adds avoidable noise.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers return value (single JSON object) and failure modes. It also includes API endpoint and required parameters. However, the company_id default/required inconsistency reduces completeness, as an agent cannot fully rely on it for correct invocation.

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 description provides useful context for both parameters (company_id defaults to config, id must resolve via list tool), but it also states 'Required parameters: company_id, id' while claiming company_id has a default when omitted. This internal contradiction undermines clear parameter understanding, despite the schema having 100% coverage.

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 template section, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling list tool by emphasizing 'single' and 'full field set', and the title aligns with the action.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('when you already know which recycled action plan template section you want') and directs users to resolve the id with the matching list tool first, providing an alternative. This is clear and actionable.

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