Batch-Get Model Manager Viewpoints By UUID (REST V2.0, Issue-Scoped)

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

The description provides details on filtering, order preservation, and the empty response case, which adds value beyond the annotations. However, it contains an internal contradiction: it describes a batch get operation but also claims 'Creates a new Coordination Issues'. This inconsistency undermines transparency. Annotations have readOnlyHint=false, which aligns with creation but not with 'get'. The description does not resolve this.

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 verbose and includes redundant information such as the Procore API category and the full endpoint URL. It also contains the confusing creation sentence that should not be present. While the first sentence is succinct, the overall length and inclusion of irrelevant details hurt conciseness.

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?

The description explains the main flow: input filtering, forwarding to Model Manager, and the empty response case. It also indicates the typical response format. However, it does not cover error scenarios or the behavior when Model Manager returns an error. The misleading creation statement detracts from completeness.

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 covers 100% of parameters, and the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains the 'ids' array must be non-empty, that the server filters them to those mapped on the issue, and preserves request order. It also clarifies the required path parameters. This significantly helps the agent understand the parameter behavior.

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 states that the tool performs a 'batch get action on Coordination Issues' and explains the filtering and forwarding to Model Manager. However, it also misleadingly claims 'Creates a new Coordination Issues', which contradicts the 'get' purpose and reduces clarity. The endpoint and path parameters are provided, but the core purpose is muddled by this erroneous statement.

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 gives context on when to use the tool ('Use this to perform the batch get action on Coordination Issues') and explains the filtering behavior and the case when no IDs remain. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use it. The guidance is implicit but not comprehensive.

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