Show RFI Reply

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description explicitly states 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore' and details failure modes (401/403/404), adding valuable behavioral context not present in 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 slightly long but front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds useful information: usage context, parameter behavior, return type, safety, error handling, and API endpoint. Minor redundancy in stating 'Returns a single JSON object' after 'Returns detailed information,' but overall well structured.

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 no output schema, the description covers return type ('single JSON object'), safety, error payloads, API endpoint, and parameter prerequisites. It provides a complete operational picture for an agent to select and 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%, but the description adds meaningful semantics: project_id defaults to the config-set value when omitted, and rfi_id/id must reference existing parent records to be resolved via the matching list tool. This clarifies creation/origin of the IDs beyond basic schema 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns detailed information on a specified RFI reply.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_rfi_replies (which lists many) and create/update/delete tools, which mutate.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'when you already know which RFI reply you want and need its full field set.' It also directs users to resolve IDs via the matching list tool first, and notes project_id defaulting from procore_set_config, giving clear operational guidance.

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