Show Visitor Logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds meaningful beyond-annotation context: it reaffirms read-only semantics, describes the return payload, and details common failure modes with HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404). It also notes the `project_id` default from procore_set_config.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then efficiently covers usage, return type, safety, error behavior, defaults, and endpoint reference. Every sentence carries useful information without padding 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description tells the agent what to expect (a single JSON object), how errors surface, when to use it, how parameters behave, and even the API path. This covers the key decision-making and invocation concerns for a single-record 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 provides basic descriptions for both parameters (URL path identifiers), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the `project_id` default and instructing the agent to resolve `id` via a list tool first. Minor inconsistency: it lists both as required while also saying `project_id` defaults when omitted, which is slightly confusing.

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?

Opens with 'Returns single Visitor Log' – a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_visitor_logs, create_visitor_log, update_visitor_log, and delete_visitor_log. Mentioning 'full field set' further clarifies this is the detail-by-ID endpoint.

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 visitor log you want and need its full field set.' Also gives a concrete prerequisite: resolve `id` with the matching list tool first. This provides clear selection and sequencing guidance.

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