Download Log Of Specification Section Revision

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: access permissions (Admin or can_view_download_log), error scenarios (401, 403, 404), and return format (JSON object with generated file or download URL). It confirms read-only behavior matching the readOnlyHint, adding no contradiction. It doesn't describe pagination behavior or rate limits, but the annotations already cover the safety profile.

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 dense but well-structured, front-loading the primary purpose. Every sentence provides useful information—purpose, permissions, usage conditions, defaults, return type, error handling, and endpoint. It is a bit long, but each element earns its place with no filler.

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 appropriately explains the return value (JSON object with file or URL). It covers permissions, error cases, parameter defaults, id resolution, and API details. Missing some specifics like pagination behavior for page/per_page parameters, but those are documented in the input schema, so completeness is high.

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% (all parameters documented in schema). The description adds meaningful semantic info: company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config values when omitted, and id must reference an existing parent record—resolve with the list tool. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions, enriching agent understanding.

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 returns the download log of a specification section revision, using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by noting it is for when you already know which log you want and need the full field set. The endpoint and API version are also provided.

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?

Explicitly indicates when to use this tool: when you already know which log you want and need its full field set. Also instructs to resolve the id with the matching list tool first. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like download_zip_of_specification_section_revisions or download_single_pdf_of_specification_section_revisions, so it stops short of a full when/when-not comparison.

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