Show Recycled Company Action Plan Template

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

The description goes beyond annotations by stating it is read-only, describing error payloads with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404), and noting permission requirements. However, it contains an internal contradiction: it says 'company_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted' while also listing company_id as a required parameter and the schema confirms it as required. This inconsistency slightly undermines transparency.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the main action appears in the first sentence, followed by usage conditions, behavior, error handling, required parameters, and API endpoint. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy.

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 read-only show operation without an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter resolution, error scenarios, and endpoint details—quite thorough. The internal contradiction about company_id requiredness slightly detracts from completeness, as it could confuse an agent about whether the parameter must always be supplied.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage for both parameters. The description adds some context (e.g., resolving id via list tool, company_id default), but the company_id default statement conflicts with the schema's required field and the description's own 'Required parameters' note, making the added semantics unreliable. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema 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 'Returns the specified Recycled Company Action Plan Template,' identifying the action (returns), resource (recycled template), and distinguishing it from sibling tools like list or restore operations. The scope is specific and unambiguous.

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 says when to use it ('when you already know which recycled company action plan template you want and need its full field set') and provides guidance to resolve the id via the matching list tool first. This establishes a clear when-to-use and points to an alternative for id resolution.

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