Show Work Activity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing error payload behavior (401, 403, 404) and the return format as a single JSON object.

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 longer than typical but every sentence provides useful context: purpose, usage, parameter defaults, return type, read-only confirmation, error handling, required parameters, and API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant filler.

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 GET tool with no output schema, the description explains the return value (single JSON object), error semantics, parameter behavior, and API context. It provides sufficient information for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without relying on external documentation.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds that id must identify an existing parent record and that company_id can default, but the default statement contradicts the schema's required flag, making the added semantics partially misleading rather than clearly helpful.

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 'Returns the specified Work Activity' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'when you already know which work activity you want' and mentions returning a single JSON object, differentiating it from list operations.

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 the tool ('when you already know which work activity you want and need its full field set') and directs to resolve the id with the matching list tool first. However, the statement that company_id 'defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted' conflicts with the later claim that company_id is required, introducing slight ambiguity.

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