Show RFI Reply

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. The description adds that it returns a JSON object and references the Procore API endpoint (GET /rest/v1.0/...), providing behavioral context beyond annotations. It does not disclose pagination or error details, but given annotation coverage, this is acceptable.

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 long, front-loading the action and then listing parameters and API info. Every sentence adds value; there is no fluff. Could be slightly more concise by merging parameter info, but still effective.

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 simplicity (no output schema, 5 parameters, 3 required), the description adequately covers the purpose, required parameters, and return type. It also mentions the API endpoint for reference. This is sufficient for a straightforward read tool.

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 each parameter already has a description. The description adds meaning by listing the three required parameters (project_id, rfi_id, id) and stating that it returns a JSON object, which clarifies the output. This adds value beyond the schema.

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 detailed information on a specified RFI reply' and 'fetch the full details of a specific RFI records by its identifier'. It accurately describes a read operation for a unique RFI reply, distinct from sibling tools like list_rfi_replies.

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 says 'Use this to fetch the full details of a specific RFI records by its identifier', which provides context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives (e.g., list_rfi_replies for multiple). This is adequate but lacks exclusion guidance.

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