Show Recycled Project Form

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it returns a JSON object and specifies required parameters, aligning with annotations. No contradictions. Missing clarification about page/per_page parameters being irrelevant for a single item.

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 four sentences and front-loads the purpose. It includes unnecessary API categorization ('Procore API: Project Management > Forms'), but is generally concise enough for an agent.

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 operation, the description covers core aspects: what it returns, required parameters, and endpoint. It does not mention error handling or pagination irrelevance, but given the schema covers parameters, it is fairly complete.

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 only repeats required parameters already in schema, adding no new meaning or usage context 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 it returns details for a specified recycled Project Form, using verbs like 'returns' and 'fetch' and specifying 'specified' and 'by its identifier', which distinguishes it from listing siblings. The API endpoint further clarifies the action.

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 tells the agent to use this tool to fetch full details of a specific form, implying it is for single-item retrieval. However, it does not explicitly contrast with listing tools (e.g., list_recycled_project_forms) or non-recycled versions, leaving some ambiguity.

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