View An Action Plan Test Record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it returns a JSON object and gives the API endpoint, but does not explain the pagination parameters present in the schema, which are unusual for a single record view.

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 4 sentences, front-loaded with purpose. It includes some redundancy ('Use this to read information about Action Plans from Procore' and 'Returns a JSON object') and slightly inconsistent plural ('Action Plans'). Still efficient overall.

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?

Given no output schema, the description states it returns a JSON object but does not describe the response structure. Pagination parameters are included in schema but not explained in context. Adequate but could provide more detail on what the record contains.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description repeats required parameters and adds that they are URL path parameters, but adds minimal extra meaning 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 clearly states it returns details of an Action Plan Test Record, using 'Returns the details' and 'use this to read information.' The purpose is specific, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling list tools, though the singular 'a' and name indicate a single record.

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 provides usage context ('Use this to read information about Action Plans from Procore') and lists required parameters, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools.

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