Show Recycled Environmental

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description reinforces with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' It adds valuable context beyond annotations: failure modes (401/403/404), the default behavior for project_id, and the prerequisite that id must resolve to an existing record.

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 somewhat long but every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, usage, defaults, return format, safety, errors, required params, and API context. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to scan, and avoids redundancy with the annotations.

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?

The description covers all essential aspects for a show tool with no output schema: what it returns ('a single JSON object'), how to identify the record (id resolution), default project_id behavior, error codes, and the underlying Procore endpoint. This is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 meaning beyond schema by explaining that project_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted and that id must refer to an existing parent record resolved via the list tool. This enriches parameter understanding despite the schema already documenting each parameter.

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 'Returns the details of a single soft-deleted environmental record from the Recycle Bin,' using a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like show_environmental (active records) and list_recycled_environmentals (listing) by emphasizing 'single' and 'you already know which.'

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 guidance: 'Use this when you already know which recycled environmental you want and need its full field set' and instructs to resolve the id with the matching list tool first. It does not explicitly name an alternative or state when not to use it, but the context implies it for single-record retrieval rather than listing.

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