Create Advanced Export For Existing RFI

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, which aligns with the tool creating an export (a write operation). The description adds that it 'Generates the export and returns a download URL or async job handle,' hinting at asynchronous behavior. However, it does not explain polling or how to handle async jobs. The description also includes the API endpoint, which is helpful. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 contains a glaring error: 'Use this to create a new RFI records in Procore.' This sentence is misleading and wastes space. The description is otherwise somewhat efficient but could be more concise. It mixes high-level purpose with specific parameter guidance, which is acceptable but not optimal.

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 mentions return value ('download URL or async job handle') and required parameters. However, given the lack of an output schema and the complexity of an advanced export, it should explain asynchronous behavior more clearly (e.g., how to poll for completion). It also incorrectly mentions creating RFI records, which undermines completeness. Overall, it covers the basics but has notable gaps.

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?

All 5 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining the purpose of optional parameters: 'Specify which kind of cover sheet you'd like, if one at all, and which associated attachments ... included in the export. Specify whether you'd like the export to be in PDF or ZIP format.' This reinforces what the parameters do but does not add significant 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 the tool's purpose: 'Request an advanced export for an existing RFI.' It specifies the verb (request/create), resource (advanced export), and distinguishes it from simple PDF downloads by mentioning customization options like cover sheet, attachments, and format. The sibling tool 'show_rfi_in_pdf_format' exists, and this tool is differentiated by its advanced options.

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 includes a misleading sentence: 'Use this to create a new RFI records in Procore.' This is inaccurate, as the tool creates an export, not an RFI. It does not provide clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like a simple PDF export. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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