Show Workflow Activity History

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: it explicitly states 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore,' and describes failure patterns (401 for expired token, 403 for missing permission, 404 for unresolvable id). It also specifies the return format as a single JSON object, which is helpful given the lack of an output schema.

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 four sentences long, front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence provides distinct information: when to use, prerequisite, return shape, safety, error behavior, required parameters, and API endpoint. No filler 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?

For a simple single-object retrieval tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, usage, prerequisite step, read-only behavior, error handling, and endpoint. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The schema provides 100% parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra value for the id parameter by clarifying it must identify an existing parent record and that it should be resolved via the list tool first. It also restates the required parameters, but most parameter semantics are already handled by 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 'Get information about a Workflow Activity History' – a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from the sibling list tool by noting 'Use this when you already know which workflow activity history you want and need its full field set,' and references the matching list tool for resolution.

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?

It gives explicit usage context: use when you already know the specific activity history and need full fields. It further instructs 'id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first,' which identifies the list tool as the natural precursor and alternative. This clearly directs when to use this vs. the list tool.

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