Show Recycled Checklist (Inspection)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: return shape ('Returns a single JSON object') and failure semantics with specific HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404). This helps the agent anticipate auth and error conditions.

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 and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It includes API path and error details, which are useful. The final 'Required parameters' sentence is redundant with the input schema and slightly inconsistent with the default claim, preventing a perfect score.

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 two-parameter read-only show tool, the description is quite complete: it covers when to use, return type, error behavior, and id resolution. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit 'single JSON object... full field set' statement. Minor inconsistency about project_id default prevents 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds useful context about the id needing to identify an existing parent record and that project_id can default from procore_set_config. However, this contradicts the schema's required list and the description's own 'Required parameters: id, project_id' statement, which could mislead an agent into omitting project_id.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the specified Recycled Checklist (Inspection).' The word 'Recycled' distinguishes it from the active show_checklist_inspection sibling, and 'specified' distinguishes it from list-oriented tools. It clearly states the tool's function and scope.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use this when you already know which recycled checklist you want and need its full field set.' It also instructs to resolve the id with the matching list tool first, guiding the correct workflow. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the guidance is clear enough.

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