Show RFI

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' It goes beyond annotations by detailing failure modes (401/403/404), the return format ('single JSON object'), and the project_id defaulting rule, providing substantial additional behavior 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 a single focused paragraph that front-loads the primary purpose and then provides only high-value details: use case, default behavior, return type, read-only nature, error codes, required parameters, and API endpoint. Every sentence contributes meaning, with no filler or redundancy.

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 2-parameter GET with no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: when to use, prerequisites (resolve id first), default project_id, return format, read-only confirmation, error payload codes, and the actual API endpoint. This is more than sufficient for an agent to 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% with descriptions for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds practical meaning by noting that project_id defaults to the procore_set_config value and that id must reference an existing parent record, plus it explicitly lists the required parameters, enhancing the agent's ability to use them correctly.

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 clear, specific statement: 'Return detailed information about a specified RFI in a specified Project.' This identifies the verb (return), resource (RFI), and scope (specified project), and differentiates it from list tools and other show_* siblings by emphasizing 'full field set' for a single known RFI.

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 states when to use: 'Use this when you already know which RFI you want and need its full field set,' and provides a prerequisite: 'resolve it with the matching list tool first.' It also clarifies the default behavior of project_id from procore_set_config, giving clear context for the agent.

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