Show RFI In PDF Format

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' It adds valuable error-handling context, describing common failure status codes (401, 403, 404) and the return payload format (JSON with file or download URL). This goes beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes necessary details like error handling and API endpoint without excessive verbosity. It is longer than minimal but every sentence adds value, covering usage, defaults, errors, and return format.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is thorough. It explains the return format, error payloads, required parameters, default project_id behavior, and even includes the exact API endpoint. This equips the agent to invoke the tool correctly and anticipate outcomes.

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 each parameter having a description. The description adds meaning by explaining that project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted, and that id must reference an existing parent record. However, the schema lists project_id as required, making the 'when omitted' claim somewhat contradictory, though the description later clarifies 'Required parameters: project_id, id.'

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's function: 'Return detailed information (as a PDF) about a specified RFI in a specified Project.' The verb 'return' and resource 'RFI' are explicit, and the output format (PDF) is specified. It distinguishes itself from siblings like show_rfi (JSON) and show_submittal_in_pdf_format (different resource type).

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 provides a clear usage context: 'Use this when you already know which RFI you want and need its full field set.' It also advises resolving the id with the matching list tool first, which is practical guidance. It does not explicitly mention alternatives to avoid, but the context is sufficient for most cases.

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