Show Recycled Incident

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

The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: error payloads with common status codes, soft-deleted context, and response structure equivalence to Show Incident. However, it also claims 'project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted' while the schema marks project_id as required — a direct contradiction with the structured schema that would mislead an agent into omitting a required parameter. This inaccuracy undermines trust despite the extra context.

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 purpose, then usage, param behavior, return type, and error handling in a logical order. It's dense but efficient, though it redundantly repeats 'Required parameters: project_id, id' when the schema already lists them, and the endpoint line is extra but useful.

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 simple read-only GET with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it returns, when to use it, parameter semantics, error conditions, and API reference. The only notable gap is the contradictory default note, but overall the tool is well-specified.

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 does add extra meaning: explaining id should come from a list tool and project_id defaults to config. But the default claim is inaccurate given the schema's required field, and 'id must identify an existing parent record' is vague. Net contribution is marginal.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the specified recycled incident with full details including all associated records.' It also distinguishes from siblings by noting the response is identical to Show Incident but for a soft-deleted incident, and clarifies when to use it (when you already know which recycled incident you need its full field set). This clearly separates it from list_recycled_incidents and show_incident.

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 'Use this when you already know which recycled incident you want and need its full field set' and instructs to resolve the id with the matching list tool first. It also notes project_id defaults to procore_set_config, which is a usage note. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria beyond the 'when' statement, so not a 5.

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