Show Recycled Project Form

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). It explicitly confirms 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore' and details failure modes: 'Failures come back as an error payload carrying the HTTP status — commonly 401 when the token has expired, 403 without tool permission, and 404 when an id does not resolve.' This is valuable operational information.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph. It opens with the core purpose, then provides usage guidance, return type, safety confirmation, error behavior, required parameters, and the API endpoint. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it returns (single JSON object), when to use it, how to resolve the id, error payloads, and the full REST endpoint. The annotations already denote safety, so the description's completeness is more than adequate.

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 describes both parameters with basic 'URL path parameter' definitions (100% coverage). The description adds meaningful semantics by noting 'project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted' and that 'id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first.' This goes beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 starts with 'Returns the details for a specified recycled Project Form' — a specific verb ('returns'), resource ('recycled Project Form'), and scope ('details'). It further distinguishes itself from potential sibling tools by stating 'Use this when you already know which recycled project form you want', clearly separating it from list or search operations.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this when you already know which recycled project form you want and need its full field set.' It also provides a prerequisite and an alternative: 'id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first,' which tells the agent to use a list tool to obtain the id before invoking this one.

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