Show Specification Section Revision

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value beyond annotations by stating 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore' and disclosing failure modes: 'Failures come back as an error payload carrying the HTTP status — commonly 401 when the token has expired, 403 without tool permission, and 404 when an id does not resolve.' No contradiction with 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 information-dense but structured well: purpose, usage context, prerequisites, return type, safety, error handling, required parameters, and API endpoint. Slightly long but every sentence adds useful information, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, usage, id resolution, return format ('single JSON object'), error scenarios, and required params. No output schema exists, but the 'full field set' phrase implies comprehensive return data. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke 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 description coverage is 100% with both parameters already described. The description adds semantic value by stating 'id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first,' which reinforces that id must be a validated existing record. Also confirms both are required, matching 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 'Retrieves a single specification section revision in Procore' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by noting 'Use this when you already know which specification section revision you want and need its full field set,' which separates it from list and download tools.

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 provides when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when you already know which specification section revision you want and need its full field set.' Also instructs to resolve the id with the matching list tool first, establishing a clear prerequisite. It implies not to use this when you lack the id, and alternative tools are indirectly referenced.

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