Show Waste 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 substantial context beyond that: it states 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore,' details failure modes with HTTP status codes (401/403/404), and explains the default for project_id and the return format. This goes well beyond what annotations provide, with no contradictions.

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 efficiently structured with the core action first, then usage context, parameter behavior, error handling, and API reference. Each sentence adds distinct information—no filler or redundancy. It is slightly long but every clause earns its place.

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 read tool with two parameters, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers the return type, default behavior, prerequisites, error handling, and even the specific API endpoint. There is no output schema, so its explanation of the return format is helpful. The only minor gap is not listing the waste log fields, but that is not necessary for tool selection.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning to the parameters by explaining that project_id defaults to the procore_set_config value (even though the schema marks it required, a minor inconsistency) and that id must identify an existing parent record, to be resolved via the list tool. This extra guidance on id resolution is valuable 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 opens with 'Returns single Waste Log,' a clear verb+resource statement that distinguishes it from list_waste_logs (which returns multiple) and other log tools. It further specifies 'when you already know which waste log you want and need its full field set,' reinforcing the single-item purpose.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('when you already know which waste log you want') and instructs to 'resolve it with the matching list tool first,' clearly naming the alternative for finding the id. It also notes the read-only nature, implying it is not for mutations, and explains the project_id default behavior.

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