Find Configurable Field Set By Index

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

The description adds substantial context beyond annotations, including the fallback to a template with ID null when not found, the single JSON object return format, and specific error payload details (401/403/404). It also discloses the default for company_id, all of which are not revealed by the annotations alone.

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 front-loaded with the core behavior and every sentence contributes new information: return behavior, fallback, usage, default, read-only, errors, required params, and endpoint. There is no fluff 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?

With no output schema, the description still covers the return type (single JSON object), the not-found fallback, and common failure statuses. It also indicates the required parameters and API context, making it sufficiently self-contained for correct invocation despite having 9 parameters.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds one valuable parameter semantic—'company_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted'—which is not in the schema. It does not elaborate on the scope__* parameters, but the schema already describes them adequately.

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 the details for a specified Configurable Field Set if found' with an explicit fallback behavior. It distinguishes itself by specifying the use case 'when you already know which configurable field set you want and need its full field set,' separating it from list or other lookup tools.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Use this when you already know which configurable field set you want and need its full field set.' However, it does not name alternative tools (e.g., list_configurable_field_sets or show_configurable_field_set) or provide when-not guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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