Show Work Logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable context: it explicitly states 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore,' describes return format as 'a single JSON object,' and discloses error handling details including common HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404). These go beyond the annotations to prepare the agent for failure modes.

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 moderately sized but each sentence contributes value: purpose, use case, parameters, return type, error behavior, and endpoint reference. It is well-organized and front-loaded with the primary action, though the later sentences are dense.

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 single-record read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it returns (single JSON object), error behavior, parameter semantics, and API reference. It does not explain field content or pagination, but those are unnecessary for a by-id retrieval. The tool is sufficiently complete 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by noting that project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted, and that id must identify an existing parent record (resolve with the list tool). It also reiterates both parameters are required. This goes beyond the schema's path-parameter labels.

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 Work Log,' providing a specific verb+resource pairing. It further distinguishes itself from siblings (list_work_logs) by emphasizing 'already know which work log you want' and 'need its full field set,' clearly indicating single-record retrieval.

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 this tool ('Use this when you already know which work log you want') and names the alternative ('resolve it with the matching list tool first'). This gives the agent a clear decision rule and references the list sibling.

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