Show Recycled Environmental

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds 'Returns a JSON object describing the requested Incidents,' which is minimal behavioral context. It does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, or potential response pitfalls beyond what is implied.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loads the purpose. Every sentence serves a purpose: stating the primary action, usage context, and endpoint. No unnecessary words.

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?

With no output schema, the description provides basic context (returns JSON) but does not detail the structure, pagination, or error scenarios. For a single-resource retrieval with good annotations, this is adequate but could be more informative.

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 has 100% description coverage for its parameters. The description only repeats the required fields (project_id, id) which are already marked as required in the schema. No additional semantic value is added beyond what the schema provides.

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 that the tool returns a specified Recycled Environmental record, using a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('Recycled Environmental record'). It also references the Procore API domain and endpoint, distinguishing it from siblings that may list or manipulate recycled records.

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?

The description indicates when to use the tool ('to fetch the full details of a specific Incidents by its identifier') and lists required parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools (e.g., list_recycled_environmentals) for different use cases.

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